





' l^: 



m 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



^/«/. B]k.U i 



# .^^/.e-^ 






UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



IMMERSIONISTS 



AGAINST 

THE bible; 

OR, 

THE BABEL BUILDERS CONFOUNDED, 

IN AN EXPOSITION OF 

THE OEiaiN, DESIGN, TACTICS, AND PROGRESS OP 

THE NEW VERSION MOYE^tlENT OP CA:\IP- 

BELLITES AND OTHER BAPTISTS. 

BY THE ^/ 

REV. N. H. LEE, 

OF THE LOUISVILLE CONFERENCE. 



EDITED BY THOMAS 0. SUMMERS, D.D. 




Na5!)bill£, ®£ntT. : 
PUBLISHED BY E. STEVENSON & P. A. OWEN, AGENTS, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 

1857. 



V 



81'' 



STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT, 
J50UTiTERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN. 



(f flnttttts. 



PREFACE BY THE EDITOR lU 

CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION ^ 9 

CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT 13 

CHAPTER III. 

THE MAIN DESIGN OF THE MOVEMENT 35 

CHAPTER TV, 

THE MAIN DESIGN, CONTINUED 54 

CHAPTER V. 

THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT 87 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT, CONTINUED 108 

CHAPTER VII. 

DISPARAGEMENT OF THE COMMON VERSION 123 

(iii) 



IV CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE IMMERSIONISTS HAVE DONE AJ^^D ARE DOING 

WHAT THEY CHARGE KING JAJVIES WITH DOING.. 159 

CHAPTER IX. 

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT OF THE REVISIONISTS 174 

CHAPTER X. 

CilANGES PROPOSED IN THE COMMON VERSION 208 

CHAPTER XL 

THE PORTION OF THE REVISION PUBLISHED 229 

CHAPTER XIL 
CONCLUSION 246 



Into 1)2 t|e ^Mtflt. 



We deeply regret tlie necessity which exists for the 
publication of such a work as the present volume. The 
exposure of Jesuitism, whether popish or Protestant, is 
a task so irksome that we instinctively shrink from its 
performance ; but when it is needful to be done, he who 
performs it in a candid, charitable spirit, deserves the 
gratitude of all concerned. We think the author of the 
following pages has tempered unavoidable severity with 
the meekness of wisdom ; and that no one can justly 
complain of a want of fairness and courtesy in the mat- 
ter and manner, tone and temper, of his production. 

The "tactics" of the immersionist translators ought 
to be exposed, though the exposure is humiliating to 
every lover of the Bible. The rampant sectarianism/ 
which is at the head and front of the movement is too^ 
palpable, and, as Mr. Lee shows, has been too often ad- 
mitted, to be denied with any credit. We see, indeed, 

1* (V) 



VI PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. 

wMle these sheets are passing through the press, that 
some of the leaders in this schismatical movement are 
beginning to hesitate as they approach the brink of the 
precipice; they are afraid to take the leap, and well 
they might be ! What if the masses for whose benefit 
"immersion" is to be "printed in the Bible," should 
learn to attach the idea of sprinkling to that term, 
rather than that of dipping to the mode of baptism! 
It is shrewdly suggested that such a thing as this would 
not be without precedent. And truly no one need mar- 
vel at this, for it would not be a tithe as absurd to make 
immersion mean affusion as to make baptism in the New 
Testament mean immersion. 

As to the other changes proposed in the New Version, 
all we have to say on this subject is, that if they are 
amendments we do not want them in our standard Bible, 
unless put there by competent authority : of course, we 
do not want them if they are not amendments, but mere 
alterations, frequently for the worse — as are many of 
the changes that have come under our notice. 

We care not how many versions and commentaries 
are made by learned men, provided they do not usurp 
the place of our old English Bible. We can tolerate an 
occasional correction of the authorized text in the course 
of a sermon, though we think this should be very seldom 
attempted. We sometimes hear such pulpit criticisms 



PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. VU 

of the version of the forty-seven translators of our Eng- 
lish Vulgate as remind us of the anecdote told by old 
Isaac Walton, in his Life of Bishop Sanderson. When 
Mr. Sanderson was at Lincoln College, Oxford, under 
the care of the learned Dr. Kilbie, one of ** Eing James's 
translators," he and the learned Hebrician made a tour 
into Derbyshire, and being at church on a Sunday, heard 
a young preacher declaim against the then late transla- 
tion, somewhat, it would seem, in the spirit of the im- 
mersionist revisionists. He showed, says Walton, 
** three reasons why a particular word should have been 
otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, 
the preacher was invited to the doctor's friend's house, 
where, after some conference, the doctor told him he 
might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have 
filled his auditors' ears with needless exceptions against 
the late translation ; and for that word for which he 
Ojffered to that poor congregation three reasons why it 
ought to have been translated as he said, he and others 
had considered all three, and found thirteen more con- 
siderable reasons why it was translated as now printed ; 
and told him, if his friend, then attending him, should 
prove guilty of such indiscretion, he should forfeit his 
favor, — to which Mr. Sanderson said, he hoped he 
should not ; and the preacher was so ingenuous as to 
say, he would not justify himself." 



Vlll PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. 

We are not sanguine enough to expect such ingenu- 
ousness on the part of those who are engaged in the 
present movement, as a blind sectarianism is the mo- 
tive by which they are influenced. Nevertheless, a fair 
exposure of their movements and methods may keep 
the unsuspecting from an entangling alliance with them, 
if it should not be otherwise serviceable to the interests 
of truth and righteousness. With this view the present 
little book was written by the author : that its circula- 
tion will be productive of good is the belief of those who 
have examined it, including 

Nashville, Tenn., March 8, 1856. 



Immmionists against t\t §iWe. 



C H AP TEE I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The manner in wliicli tlie New Version move- 
ment has been advocated^ has had; as I conceive; a 
tendency to lessen the confidence of the public mind 
in the Divine origin and the uncorrupted preserv- 
ation of the Sacred Scriptures. And; indeed; this 
is the necessary tendency of the movement itself. 
It should therefore be exposed and resisted by 
every lover of Divine truth. An eminent British 
statesman has said; that public confidence may be 
far more easily destroyed than restored, when 
once afiected. A brainless fanatic may destroy 
in an hour a temple which required ageS; and in- 
calculable treasure, with the direction of the 

(9) 



10 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

liigliest order of genius, to complete. Let the 
confidence of the masses of the people in the 
truth of the Bible be once destroyed, and what 
may we not expect? The scenes enacted in 
France, in the latter part of the last century and 
the beginning of the present, may be reenacted ; 
or the state of things which has existed in the 
greater part of Europe, and especially in Ger- 
many, may prevail throughout Christendom, — in 
which, while the Bible is avowedly received as 
the text-book of religion, it is made to bow down 
in subordination to human reason. If, as the ad- 
vocates of this movement contend, the version in 
common use is sectarian, and not to be trusted 
as a guide to truth and duty, in a great many 
cardinal respects, how much more confidence can 
they expect to be placed in their proposed ver- 
sion ? And, should they succeed in destroying 
confidence in King James's version, how will they 
manage to secure confidence in their own ? They 
will not be able to do so, unless they can demon- 
strate that they are free from sectarian Mas; and 
in order to do this, they must demonstrate that 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 11 

they are infalUhle : that is^ under the influence 
of Divine inspiration. Should they not be able 
to do this, and the contingency referred to should 
occur, what foundation will the Church have for 
her faith? ^^If the foundations be destroyed, 
what can the righteous do ?'' 

Paine and Voltaire have scarcely employed 
more profanity in their attacks upon the sacred 
writings, than the most prominent advocates 
of this scheme have used in reference to the 
version in common use. They have indulged in 
low, vulgar abuse, which would far better become 
the very lowest infidel club than an assembly of 
those calling themselves Christians. 

Indeed, they have made some of the very same 
objections to our translation which Paine and 
others of the lower class of infidels have made; 
and one avowed object of the movement is to 
endeavor to remove all ground of objection to the 
Holy Scriptures upon the part of infidels. 

And, though these '^nihhling critics^^ have 
generally little talent, and less learning, yet they 
have misled many of the unwary, and will, if not 



12 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

checked^ do much harm to the cause of truth. 
It is our design^ in these pageS; to stop the 
mouths of these gainsayers. 

One thing which distinguishes the advocates 
of the New Version movement is, their habitual 
(though we hope unintentional) suppression and 
misrepresentation of facts. They are endeavor- 
ing to make false impressions in regard to the 
origin of the movement, and in regard to the 
main object had in view. My main object in the 
following pages will be to present the movementj 
in its true light, by presenting the facts in con 
nection with its origin and history. And, in do- 
ing this, I shall not depend upon rumor^ but I 
shall present extracts from authentic and reliable 
documents — principally those published by the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, the Ameri- 
can Bible Union, and societies coordinate and 
subordinate to those. 

I will get my authority mainly from the men 
who led the way in getting up the movement, 
and who have been mainly concerned in the pro- 
secution of it from the beginning. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT. 

A GREAT outcry has been made against the 
American Bible Society by the advocates of the 
New Version movement. It is charged that the 
Society has treated immersionists with great in- 
justice, in their refusal to patronize versions of 
the Holy Scriptures made by them, while, at the 
same time, they have liberally sustained, by their 
influence and appropriations in money, versions 
made by other denominations. They complain 
especially of the action of the Society in reference 
to the version in the Burmese language, made by 
Dr. Judson, which was the immediate occasion 
of their secession from the Society, and the form- 
ation of the American and Foreign Bible Society. 

That the reader may see whether there be any 

valid ground of complaint or not, I make the 

following extract from the account given of this 
2 



14 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

matter bj tlie American Bible Society. (Bible 
Translations, pp. 4, 5, 6.) 

^^In July, 1835, a letter was received through 
a friend in Philadelphia, from the Rev. Wm. H. 
Pearce, an English Baptist missionary at Bengal, 
in India. In this letter information was given 
that the writer, together with the Rev. Mr. 
Yates, a brother missionary, had prepared a new 
version of the Bengalee Scriptures, which they 
were desirous of having published. With Christ- 
ian frankness it was stated, that in this version 
they had translated the Greek terms haptizo and 
haptisma by words which signify immerse and im- 
mersion, and that the Bible Society at Calcutta 
had, on this account, refused to patronize it. 
Had this letter contained nothing further, the 
Board could easily have dismissed the whole mat- 
ter, as they had no responsibilities connected with 
that version. But it was further stated that this 
new Bengalee translation was made on the same 
principles as those which obtained in the Bur- 
mese translation, which it was understood the 
American Bible Society patronized. Here was a 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 15 

new and startling announcement. The Board had 
indeed granted^ at different times, many thousand 
dollars towards the publication of this Burmese 
version, but without information from any quarter, 
or the least suspicion that it was of the character 
described by Mr. Pearce. They knew the Rev. 
Dr. Judson, the translator, to be a learned and 
pious man, and therefore felt a confidence that he 
had made what they considered a faithful ver- 
sion; i. e., one which conveyed the inspired 
meaning — the only point to which they had 
thought of directing attention — presuming every 
friend of the Bible Society to be aware that its 
Board could not appropriate moneys for any new 
version of a marked denominational character. 
'' On inquiring of the Rev. S. H. Cone, (one of 
the Standing Committee on Distribution,) who had 
repeatedly solicited funds for the Burmese ver- 
sion, whether that version was prepared as de- 
scribed by Mr. Pearce, he, for the first time, 
informed them that such was the fact. Althous-h 
this letter had been once before the Committee 
on Distribution, the Board, at its meeting in 



16 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

August, referred it to the same committee again 
for further consideration. The committee, after 
frequent meetings, were unable to recommend 
any course which would satisfy all concerned. 
In order to give this subject the most full and 
impartial investigation, the Board now appointed 
a special committee of seven, namely : a Presby- 
terian, an Episcopalian, a Baptist, a Methodist, a 
Moravian, one of the Keformed Dutch Church, 
and one from the Society of Friends. After re- 
peated meetings of this select committee, and 
much inquiry, they brought in a report with sun- 
dry resolutions. The Rev. S. H. Cone, one of the 
number, also presented a minority report. The 
whole subject was now postponed for a further 
and careful consideration. The managers were 
not yet disposed to adopt the resolutions sub- 
mitted, as they hoped, by a prudent delay, for the 
adjustment of the difficulty which had arisen, in 
a way satisfactory to all who were interested. 

*^ Before the next meeting of the Board, in Sep- 
tember, several letters were received from Baptist 
clergymen, in whose judgment they had great 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 17 

regard, expressing the hope that no hasty mea- 
sures would be adopted, and suggesting some 
changes and additions in relation to the pending 
resolutions, which they had seen in a Baptist 
paper. 

^^ These letters were laid before the Board, and 
the proposed changes were made. After frequent 
postponements and much deliberation, (more, pro- 
bably, than they ever before bestowed on any one 
topic,) at a special meeting in February, 1836, 
they adopted the following preamble and resolu- 
tions — resolutions which had been prepared, or 
modified, and approved of by some of the most 
intelligent and worthy Baptist clergymen in 
America : 

^^ By the Constitution of the American Bible So- 
ciety, its managers are, in the circulating of the 
Holy Scriptures, restricted to such copies as are 
^without note or comment,^ and, in the English 
language, to ^ the version in common use.^ The 
design of these restrictions clearly seems to have 
been to simplify and mark out the duties of the 

Society, so that all religious denominations of 
2* 



18 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

whicli it is composed miglit harmoniously unite 
in performing these duties. 

^^As the managers are now called to aid exten- 
sively in circulating the Sacred Scriptures in all 
languages other than the English^ they deem it 
their duty^ in conformity with the obvious spirit 
of their compact, to adopt the following resolu- 
tions as the rule of their conduct in making ap- 
propriations for the circulation of the Scriptures 
in s\\ foreign tongues, 

'^Resolved, That in appropriating money for the 
translating^ printing, or distributing of the Sacred 
Scriptures in foreign languages, the managers feel 
at liberty to encourage only such versions as con- 
form in the principles of their translation to the 
common English version, at least so far as that 
all the religious denominations represented in this 
Society can consistently use and circulate said 
versions in their several schools and communi- 
ties. 

^' Resolved J That a copy of the above preamble 
and resolutions be sent to each of the Missionary 
Boards accustomed to receive pecuniary aid from 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 19 

this Society, with a request that the same may be 
transmitted to their respective mission stations 
where the Scriptures are in process of translation; 
and also, that the said several Missionary Boards 
be informed that their applications for aid be ac- 
companied with a declaration that the versions 
which they propose to circulate are executed 
in accordance with the above resolutions/^ 

Now, what ground is there for the complaint 
of injustice, if the above be a true account ? And 
no one has dared to say, as far as T know, that it 
is not a correct account. 

In what light does Dr. Cone, who had repeat- 
edly solicited funds for the Burmese version, and 
others connected with that enterprise, appear? 
Did they not know that it was being made on im- 
mersionist principles ? And were they not aware 
that the grant of pecuniary aid was in contraven- 
tion of the condition upon which the Society was 
originally organized ; as also of the spirit of the 
constitution of the Society ? Yet the matter was 
kept a profound secret. The managers say that 
they had been "without any information from 



20 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

any quarter, or tlie least suspicion tliat it was of 
tlie character described by Mr. Pearce/^ till they 
were informed by tbat gentleman in July, 1835. 
And it seems that Mr. Pearce made this dis- 
closure incidentally. The Calcutta Bible Society 
having refused to patronize the translation made by 
himself and Mr. Yates into the Bengalee language, 
he was seeking aid from the American Bible So- 
ciety, and, in order to succeed in his suit, he ad- 
duced the fact that they were already patronizing 
the Burmese version, which was made upon strictly 
immersionist principles. Thus, incidentally, was 
^Hhe cat let out of the wallet.'^ And what 
ground for the loud complaint of injustice in the 
final action of the Society in this case ? The So- 
ciety had ample ground of complaint against Dr. 
Cone and others, who were in the secret in regard 
to the character of the Burmese version, and 
who successfully solicited funds in aid of it, to 
the amount of ^^ many thousand dollars.'^ The So- 
ciety might in justice, in conformity with the spirit 
and letter of the constitution, have demanded the 
refunding of these '^ many thousand dollars.'^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 21 

The adoption of some version which could be 
conscientiously used by all the denominations 
composing the Society, was a condition indispens- 
able to its original organization. And, had the 
Board of Managers continued to patronize a ver- 
sion known to be strictly denominational in its 
character, the Society would have been annihilated 
in a very short time. 

Although it could be proved that the Society 
erred in selecting the version in common use as 
their standard, (and this we think cannot be done,) 
yet there is no ground to complain of the course 
they pursued in this case. And yet, strange to 
say, they complain, and make very serious charges 
against the Society, which it may be proper to 
notice briefly. 

It is objected that the Society have changed 
their policy — objecting to and withholding their 
aid from versions of such a character as they once 
patronized without hesitation. The reply of the 
Board of Manao-ers to this is as follows : " That 
they never, in a single case, granted aid to a ver- 



22 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

sion whicli ttey knew at the time to be of sucli a 
character that only a part of their associates could 
consistently use it. Taking it for granted that 
none would ask them to aid denominational ver- 
sions; they now find that in two instances they 
have aided such; though in honest ignorance. It 
appears that a small edition of an Indian Gospel 
was once printed by them, where haptizo was 
translated by a word which signifies to sprinlde or 
pour ; and that one version in India has been 
aided where the same Greek word has been tran- 
slated by a term signifying immerse. Had the 
peculiarity of these translations been known at 
the time, they would by no means have been en- 
couraged.'' 

It is charged again that the Society has acted 
with partiality, by allowing other denominations 
to make such foreign versions as they choose, 
while Baptists have not this privilege. The Board 
of Managers reply : '' This charge can have no 
foundation, unless other denominations choose to 
make versions of such a character that all the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 23 

members of the Bible Society can use them, while 
those who complain make such versions as their 
denomination alone can consistently use/^ 

It is alleged again, that the managers have 
laid down such rules in regard to versions, 
as Baptist translators cannot conscientiously 
follow. 

They reply, ^^ That they lay down no rules which 
they do not consider as enjoined on them by the 
conditions of their union, by the framers of the 
Society. If these rules bear with undue press- 
ure on any portion of the compact, it is for 
those who appoint the Board, and who have con- 
trol of the constitution, to alter that instrument 
so that men of every creed and sentiment may 
prepare such foreign versions as they please, with 
the expectation they will he published out of the 
common Bible fund! At present such license 
would be deemed a violation of what the consti- 
tution requires.^' 

The managers are charged with the inconsistency 
of patronizing German and Dutch Bibles, where. 



24 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

hapfizo is translated by words whicli signify im- 
merse , and yet withholding aid from the Bengalee 
and Burmese Bibles translated in the same way. 

The reply is, " That the German and Dutch 
are ancient ' received versions/ such as the found- 
ers of the Society promised to patronize. In the 
next place, the translated words alluded to, though 
they once signified imme7'se, have (like many 
words in the English Bible) lost their first mean- 
ing, and are now of as general import as the Eng- 
lish word baptize. They are versions which both 
Baptists and Pedobaptists can and do use con- 
tinually without objection. Should the versions 
referred to in India, as they are in the main good, 
undergo a similar change as to the import of a few 
words, so that difierent denominations can use 
them, the managers will feel no scruple in grant- 
ing them patronage.'^ 

Another grave charge made against the So- 
ciety is, that it has received a large amount of 
money from Baptists, particularly that it has re- 
ceived forty or fifty thousand dollars in the way 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 25 

of legacies, while it has made to the denomination, 
as such, but very partial appropriations, and now 
refuses to refund what is still due. 

The reply of the managers to this is, ^^That 
while a part, perhaps a large part of the denomi- 
nation who aid the Bible cause in any form have 
seceded from the American Bible Society, and 
formed one exclusively under denominational con- 
trol, (its managers being necessarily Baptists,) yet 
a highly respected and valuable portion are still 
coadjutors with the national institution/^ ^^ It 
would be improper, then, by returning Baptist 
funds, even if the alleged amount were correct, to 
treat the denomination as if it were no longer a 
part of the Bible compact. 

^^ But the charge as to the amount is not correct. 
The aggregate of legacies received from Baptists^ 
so far as known to the Board, is no more than 
$18,000. 

^'And how was this amount expended ? In pre- 
paring and circulating English, German, and 
French Bibles for the good of our own common 

country ; and a large debt remained after it was 
3 



26 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

expended. No portion went to aid the missions 
of other denominations in preparing the Scrip- 
tures in any form. It cannot be asked, then, that 
these funds should be paid back to the com- 
plainants. 

'' It appears, on examining the Society's books, 
that while no more than $18,000 has been re- 
ceived from Baptist legacies, and that this was all 
expended at home for a common object, the Bap- 
tist Foreign Mission Society was furnished, be- 
tween the years 1831 and 1838, with no less than 
$27,000 for the exclusive use of that denomina- 
tion in preparing and circulating the Scriptures 
in France, Germany, Bengal, and Burmah. In 
addition to these grants of money, the managers 
made numerous donations of English and other 
Scriptures, for the exclusive use of Baptist mis- 
sions. During the years 1838 and 1839, Messrs. 
Pasto and Love, Baptist missionaries in Greece, 
were furnished by the Society's agent in the 
Levant (and with great pleasure) with no less 
than 12,933 portions of Scripture, amounting in 
value to some $5000. It appears, then, that no 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 27 

less than $30;000 in money and books have been 
furnished by the Board to aid Baptist mission- 
aries in circulating the Scriptures^ while little 
more than half of that sum has been received 
from Baptist legacies; and this was received 
under such circumstances as to pay no part of 
those large grants. 

"But it is said that although the $40,000 or 
$50;000 of legacies spoken of as furnished to 
the Society may not as yet be actually paid over, 
still that sum will be paid from the residuum of the 
estate of Mr. Marsh, according to the provisions 
of his will. The American Bible Society, it is 
true, is one of the residuary legatees of said 
estate. How far there is a prospect of any 
speedy avails from this quarter will be seen after 
reading the following letter from the executor : 

" < Hackensack, Jan. 18th, 1840. 

'^ ' Dear Sir : — In reply to your letter of the 
15th inst., respecting information of the present 
condition of the legacy left by the late Mr. Marsh 
to the American Bible Society, I have to state, 



28 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

that by the will of Mr. Marsh the Society, in 
addition to the legacy of $10,000 which has 
been paid, are residuary legatees in common with 
the grandchildren, and their children, of the 
eight uncles of the testator, — the Society to 
receive one-third, the aforesaid children the other 
two-thirds. These residuary legatees are very 
numerous, and scattered throughout England. 
We have ascertained about one hundred; and 
from information received, there are, at least, as 
many more, whose names we have not been able 
to ascertain. Proceedings have been instituted 
in the Court of Chancery to have the estate 
settled, but from various causes it has not been 
brought to a close ; and when it will be it is im- 
possible for me to say. I am advised that I can- 
not safely pay any of the residuary legatees with- 
out having them all brought in some way into 
court, so as to be bound by a decree, in order to 
a final settlement of the estate. 

u ^Yery respectfully yours, 

^^^ James Hague.' 

" It is obvious that a long period must intervene 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 29 

before this residuum (if it ever come) will reach 
the treasury. Should it ere long be received, it 
can with every propriety be employed, as was the 
$10,000 already realized from the same estate, 
in furnishing English, French, and German 
Bibles to the mixed population of our own 
country. 

'' But it is contended that in addition to the 
legacies in question, a large amount has been 
furnished by Baptists in the way of life-director- 
ships, life-memberships, etc. Some have placed 
the amount of payments of this kind at §40,000 
or $50,000, equal to that of the legacies received 
and prospective. 

^^Now, while the managers are greatly averse to 
comparisons as to contributions of different de- 
nominations, they have been led, by the repeated 
charges referred to, to examine with some care 
as to their accuracy. They find, in the first place, 
in relation to life-directors, that out of a list of 
more than four hundred belonging to the Society, 
only thirteen are of the Baptist denomination. Of 

these thirteen, two were constituted directors on 
3* 



30 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

account of having been members of the Conven- 
tion which formed the Society. Four others 
were made directors in consequence of having 
been executors where legacies were left it. Two 
others were made directors by contributions 
furnished by men of other denominations; and 
one of the remainder is still a friend of the 
American Bible Society. It does not appear, 
then, that there are, in any view of the matter, 
more than the value of four directorships to be 
returned. 

'^ In relation to life-members, it is not easy to 
determine the precise number belonging to the 
Baptist persuasion. In looking over a list of 
more than four thousand names, not more than 
about one hundred can be thus identified ; while 
several of these were constituted members by 
those of other creeds, and several more are still 
friendly to the Society. But, allowing there 
were one hundred and fifty life-members, each of 
whom has contributed thirty dollars, the total 
would amount to no more than $4,500, to be 
added to the $600 for life-directorships. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 81 

^^ The Board have next looked over the names 
of the one hundred and twenty citizens in New 
York who aided in the erection of the Society's 
house, at an expense of $22,000. While they 
find subscriptions from almost every other denomi- 
nation, they find but one (Dr. Luke Barker's) 
belonging to that from which these charges now 
come. This contribution was thirty dollars, to be 
added to the $5,100 above named. They look, 
then, at donations made specifically to aid distri- 
butions in Burmah. Presuming these to have 
been made by Baptists, they find them to amount 
in all to less than $1000. As to contributions 
made through auxiliaries, there are no means for 
determining definitely what amount has been 
thus received. From the large auxiliaries in 
New England, New York, and a few at the 
South, whence most of the free donations come, 
it is clear to the Board, from inquiry and state- 
ments of agents, that a small amount, compara- 
lively^ (as in the case of life-directorships, life- 
memberships, and the building-fund,) has ever 



32 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

been furnislied by Baptists, particularly by those 
who have seceded. 

'^ In the newly-settled States, those of that de- 
nomination have united with others in procuring 
and distributing Bibles in their respective counties. 
But here the value was returned in books, and, 
in many instances, large gratuitous supplies in 
addition. Not a few of their number continue 
still to aid in these domestic distributions, both 
to the gratification of the auxiliaries and the 
parent Society. Funds thus paid in for books 
add nothing to the capital of the institution, and 
can furnish no claim for a demand on those 
which come as free donations. While, then, it 
cannot be determined with minute accuracy what 
amount of money has been furnished by Baptists, 
gratuitously, or so that it can be used by other 
denominations, the Board have no belief that it 
can surpass or equal the more than $30,000 which 
they as a sect have received from the institu- 
tion. Aside from the $18,000 of legacies, (used 
at home, and not to be counted,) there is no evi- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 33 

dence of their having contributed to the treasury 
one half the amount which they have received 
from it. Under such circumstances, the man- 
agers cannot^ of course, feel the obligation of 
m-dking furtlier returns to those who have chosen 
to leave the Society, and to assert in so many 
ways its wrong-doing/^ — Bible Translations^ pp. 
7-14. 

From the foregoing exhibition of facts, it 
would seem strange indeed that the immersionists 
should complain of the injustice with which they 
have been treated by the American Bible Society. 
With what face can they complain that they were 
not permitted to draw from the fund contributed 
mainly by Pedobaptist denominations, to publish 
versions of the Sacred Scriptures which were 
made so as to express their peculiar, strange, and 
false views of baptism? — that the American 
Bible Society were unwilling to take the money 
contributed to publish and circulate such versions 
of the Holy Scriptures as they could all consci- 
entiously use, to publish and circulate their pecu- 
liar dogma of ^^ dip, and nothing hut dij)f' 



34 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

They take it exceedingly hard, indeed, that they 
have to print at their own expense versions 
intended specially to sustain their peculiar notion 
about baptism. It would seem but reasonable 
that, if they are determined to take the responsi- 
bility of altering the word of Grod for their own 
accommodation, they should be willing to bear 
the expenses themselves, and not wish to involve 
others in the consequences of their temerity. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 35 



CHAPTER III. 

THE MAIN DESIGN OF THE MOVEMENT. 

This, we will prove, is the substitution of im- 
merse and its cognates for baptize and its cog- 
nates — at least, so far as the word relates to the 
ordinance of baptism. It may be proper, how- 
ever, before we proceed to the proofs, to place 
the issue involved distinctly and clearly before 
the mind of the reader, that he may be the better 
prepared to appreciate the argument. 

The question to be settled is not whether there 
are errors in the commonly received version of the 
Bible. We admit this ; yet we deny that they 
involve any doctrine or precept of Christianity. 
Neither is it the question, whether there ought to 
be a new version of the Holy Scriptures. And yet 
we are prepared to show, from the best authority^ 
that there is no necessity for it. 



36 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

The real question is this: Ought there to he 
such a version of the Holy Scriptures as the ad- 
vocates of this movement contemplate , i. e., a 
strictly sectarian one — one in which immerse and 
its cognates shall be substituted for baptize and its 
cogitates ? This is the question. Here is the 
real issue. It is important that the reader should 
keep his mind steadily fixed on this point. The 
New Version advocates have endeavored^ and are 
endeavoring, both in public addresses before the 
people, and in their publications, to mislead other 
denominations, and the public as well as their 
own people, in regard to the main design of the 
movement. They are afraid to risk it on its own 
merits. And the policy is to avoid public odium 
as far as possible, in order that they may the more 
certainly secure the means of prosecuting the 
enterprise ; for it is an expensive business. And 
no doubt they design also to keep the real cha- 
racter of the movement out of view as long as 
possible, that they may have time to drill their 
own people into an acceptance of the denomina- 
tional version, when it appears. They dwell 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 37 

largely upon the thousands of errors which they 
say are in King James's translation — the removal 
of which they urge is the object of the move- 
ment. They disclaim the sectarian character of 
the movement in these ^'Buncomhe^^ productions, 
and assert that nearly all the Protestant denomi- 
nations are united in it — that a large proportion 
of the translators are Pedobaptists, etc. Not- 
withstanding all this manoeuvering, I will show 
that the movement^ from its incipiency, has been 
strictly sectarian — that it was begun, and has 
been and is still prosecuted, for the purpose, 
mainly J of subserving sectarian views and in- 
terests — that it is designed to produce a strictly 
immersionist version — baptize and its cognates 
being rejected, and immerse and its cognates be- 
in sj substituted. And I will make this showinej 
not from rumor^ but mainly from official docu- 
ments of the associations concerned in the move- 
ment. 

The history of the movement shows this to 
have been the predominant idea. 

In the preface to Professor Stuart's work on 
4 



38 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Baptism^ we learn that ^Ye Baptist missionaries, 
viz., Bennett, Jones, Judson, Kincaid, and 
Wade, in a letter, dated Maulmain and Eangoon, 
May, 1832, inquired of Professor Stuart : ^^ Shall 
we transfer the Greek word Panri^co into the 
Burmese language, when it relates to the ordi- 
nance of baptism, or translate it by a word sig- 
nificant of immersion, or by a word of the same 
import V He answered this inquiry, and advised 
them not to translate baptizo by immerse, or any 
other mere modal term ; but to transfer it into 
the heathen tongues as it had been done into the 
Latin, French, English, etc. ', and his book on 
Baptism was written to sustain the correctness 
of this advice. These missionaries, however, 
refused to follow this advice ; and Dr. Judson, as 
we have already seen, proceeded to use a term in 
the Burmese version which signifies exclusively 
to immerse. We see, then, that the manner in 
which (3a7TTi^o) should be translated was a sub- 
ject of chief interest before the enterprise was 
entered upon. The determination to translate it 
by a word signifying immerse was no doubt 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 39 

formed before they consulted Professor Stuart. 
Nothing he could have said would in the least 
have changed their purpose. They were not, 
indeed, asking for light ; but they hoped to se- 
cure the influence of Professor S., preeminently 
distinguished for his classical and biblical learn- 
ing, in favor of the enterprise. They remind me 
of the case of a preacher, who, in a very serious 
tone, consulted a clerical brother in regard to his 
marriage with a certain lady. The brother con- 
sulted wished to know how far the case had 
progressed. ^^0,^^ said he, ^^we are engaged.'' 
^^Well,^' said the other, ^^it is too late to consult 
me now : why did you not consult me sooner ?'' 
^^0,'' said the inquirer, ^^I was afraid some one 
else would ge:^her.'' 

The desire to get immerse in the place of hap- 
tize is clearly seen from this incident to have been 
at the very bottom of the whole movement. This 
desire has led the way in every step that has been 
taken from the beginning. Immerse is the 
'^head and front^^ of the whole movement. It 
is the central idea round which every thing else 



40 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

rev^olves^ and to which every thing else is subor- 
dinate. This clearly appears in the further his- 
tory of the movement. 

Why did the Calcutta Bible Society refuse to 
patronize the version in the Bengalee language 
made by the Rev. Messrs. Pearce and Yates ? Why, 
exclusively on the ground that it was an immer^ 
sionist version. Why did the American Bible 
Society refuse to patronize this version ? and why 
did they resolve to cease patronizing the Bur- 
mese version made by Dr. Judson, when they 
learned; through the Rev. Mr. Pearce, the true cha- 
racter of it ? Why, simply because it was a sec- 
tarian version, and they could not patronize it in 
accordance with the constitution. Why did the 
Baptists take exception to the actioj^ of the Board 
of Managers, and, with Dr. Cone at their head, 
secede from the Society, and form one of their 
own ? It was on account of their devotion to the 
principle of substituting immerse for haptize. Let^ 
the Board of Managers ef their own Society tell 
us : '^ Since the die is cast, and the Bible socie- 
ties of Asia, Europe, and America have united 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 41 

in the determination neither to sanction nor 
patronize any version in which haptizo is made to 
signify immerse^ what have the Baptists to do 
but to come up to the help of the Lord, even to 
the help of the Lord against the mighty?'^ — Quar. 
Pap., p. 4. 

Let Dr. Cone say why the Baptists seceded 
from the American Bible Society, and why they 
organized the American and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety, in his speech at the first anniversary of the 
American Bible Union, at New York, October 
3d, 1850 : ^^The American and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety was organized to vindicate a principle ; 
and, in accordance with this principle, haptizo and 
its cognates should be rendered by words signify- 
ing immerse^ immersionj^ etc. Did the managers 
know the principle upon which the secession took 
place ? Did Dr. Cone know ? Is it likely that 
the managers and Dr. Cone, the president of the 
A. and F. Bible Society for many years, were 
ignorant of the principle upon which the Society 
was organized ? It is true that the A. and F. 

Bible Society resolved to use the commonly re- 
4* 



42 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

ceived version till otherwise ordered by the So- 
ciety; but, at the same time, they meditated a 
new English version, ^^ in which (to use their 
own language) the word PaTrri^o) shall be faith- 
fully translated to immersed 

The final consideration of this project was de- 
ferred till 1850, when (the matter being before 
the managers) ^Hhey shrank from the responsi- 
bility of their original purpose,^' and decided W 
be content with the commonly received version 
of the English Scriptures. And, at the anniver- 
sary of the Society in the same year, this decision 
was approved and adopted by a large majority. 
Upon this decision, the minority, with Dr. Cone 
at their head again, ^^ seceded from the secession,^' 
and formed what is styled the American Bible 
Union. Why were they induced to take this 
step? Hear Dr. Cone again upon this point, 
in the speech from which we quoted above.. 
Having said, as we have quoted, ^Uhat the A. 
and F. Bible Society was organized to vindicate 
a principle,^ ^ and "that, in accordance with this 
principle, haptizo and its cognates shou-d be ren- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 43 

dered by words signifying immerse^ immersion, ^^ 
etc. , he proceeds to indicate the principle which 
was to govern the American Bible Union : *^And 
here (i. e., whether ha^tizo should be rendered 
immerse) we fought the battle with the Pedo- 
baptists, and here we have to fight the battle 
over again with the Baptists, who will not allow 
immerse, immersion , etc., to have a place in the 
New Testament. 

* When Greek meets Greek, 

Then comes the tug of war.' 

Either fear Hhat the Pedobaptists will come 
down upon us with tremendous power/ as a dis- 
tinguished brother said, or shame, or some other 
motive of which I know nothing, deters many 
from bearing in English the same testimony for 
Christ's despised ordinance of immersion, which 
they have made it the imperative duty of their 
missionaries to bear in all the languages of the 
heathen. '^ 

Does not the above quotation most conclusively 
show that the reason of Dr. Cone and his bre- 



44 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

thren's seceding from the American and Foreign 
Bible Society was simply that they (the Society) 
would not agree to have an immersionist version 
of the English Scriptures ? Would they have 
been satisfied with any version which should not 
have conformed to this principle ? It was not 
merely a new version which they wanted^ that 
should contain a correction of errors in general, 
but it was a new version which should have im- 
merse instead of haptize, in accordance with the 
principle announced by Dr. Cone. This was a 
sine qua non with them. This, then, is the 
^^ principle,^ ^ for the sake of which they separated 
from the A. and F. Bible Society, and upon 
which they organized the American Bible Union. 
Have they since abandoned this principle ? 
Where is the record of it ? They have never 
published it to the world. There is abundant 
proof that they intend to adhere to it with a pas- 
sionate devotion. Ah ! to have their favorite 
dogma in the New Testament ! It will save them 
a world of trouble and vexation. It will be in- 
deed a great acquisition. They will be 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 45 

"As rich in having such a jewel, 

As twenty seas, if all their sand were pearl, 
The water nectar, and the rocks pure gold." 

Why did tlie immersionists in India and 
Europe secede from the Bible Society of Cal- 
cutta, and the British and Foreign Bible Society ? 
Because these societies refused to sanction or 
patronize any version in which Panri^o) is made 
to signify immerse. Would they have seceded, 
had it not been for this ? And would any thing 
short of a revocation of this decision have satis- 
fied them ? It would not. And this is settled 
beyond all controversy by the fact that they 
formed a society in England, subsequently to the 
organization of the American and Foreign Bible 
Society, called ^^ The British Translation Society/^ 
one article of whose constitution reads as follows : 
^^It shall be the object of this Society to encour- 
age the production and circulation of complete 
translations of the Holy Scriptures, completely 
authenticated for fidelity, ^^ being always under- 
stood that the words relating to the ordinance of 



46 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

baptism shall he translated hy words signifying 
immerse. ^^ 

This for ever settles the question as regards the 
main object the British Baptists have in view. 
Their main object is to put immerse in the place 
of haptize ^ and they are candid enough to avow 
it even in the constitution of their Society. I 
regret I cannot say the same of the immersionists 
in this country. But it may be said that the ad- 
vocates of revision in this country have nothing 
to do with the movement in Great Britain, and 
are not responsible for any position they may have 
assumed. 

But it is a fact, that the Translation Society of 
Great Britain was organized under the auspices 
of the American and Foreign Bible Society, the 
managers of which appointed Dr. McClay, in 
September, 1839, to visit the Baptists of England. 
And, in a letter addressed to them, they give 
their reasons for sending their agent. 

I make the following extracts : '^ While it is our 
sincere prayer that the appointment of brother 
McClay may promote a more intimate fraternal 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 47 

union between British and American Baptists in 
every thing that relates to the prosperity of the 
Redeemer's kingdom^ we particularly hope that 
in the publication of faithful versions of the 
Bible in all lands, we may ere long obtain the 
active cooperation of every Baptist in Great 
Britain. Why should they not thus unite, when 
it is known that the British and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety and the American Bible Society have virtu- 
ally combined to obscure at least a part of Divine 
revelation ? To the friends of truth it cannot be 
otherwise than a subject of deep lamentation that 
these societies, which, of all others, ought to be 
anti-sectarian, continue to circulate versions of 
the Bible unfaithful , at least so far as the subject 
of Baptism is concerned.^' — Third Annual Re- 
port, pp. 45, 46. 

In these extracts. Dr. McClay is recognized as 
the agent of the Society; and the managers ex- 
press the hope that he may influence them (the 
English Baptists) to cooperate ^^in the publication 
of faithful versions of the Bible. ^^ And we 
learn what they mean by '^ faithful versions^' in 



48 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

their lamentation about the course pursued bj the 
B. and F. B. Society and the A. B. Society in cir- 
culating ^^ versions of the Bible unfaithful^ at 
least so far as the subject of baptism is con- 
cerned.^^ Here is more than a hint as regards 
the principle upon which they expected the 
English Baptists to cooperate with them. They 
were expected to recognize immersion as a sine 
qua non in versions of the Bible. 

Dr. McClay^ after visiting the Baptist churches 
generally, writes to the American and Foreign 
Bible Society from London, as follows : " It is 
proposed to organize a Translation Society/' etc. 
(Quar. Pap., p. 122.) In the next letter he 
writes as follows : ^^My mission to Great Britain, 
by the Divine blessing, has been crowned with 
success. It has aided in the formation of the 
Bible Translation Society, whose object is to pro- 
mote the circulation of faithful versions of the 
Sacred Scriptures in all languages. '^ And what 
he means by such ^^versions,'' we learn from 
what he says of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society : ^^A society that has treated us with in- 



IMMERSTONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 49 

justice and contempt, and by their actions say 
that they would rather see the heathen perish in 
their idolatry, ignorance, and unbelief, than give 
them a Bible that shall inform them of the exact 
mind of the Holy Spirit on the subject of hap- 
tism/^ And this Society (the British Translation 
Society) was formed to promote this end — i. e., 
to do what the B. and F. Bible Society had failed 
to do, and were unwilling to do — inform the hea- 
then of ^Hhe exact mind of the Holy Spirit on 
the subject of haptismJ^ 

To show more fully that the societies in Eng- 
land and America are one in their position on the 
subject of a new version, the managers of the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, speaking of 
the success of their agent in the formation of the 
Translation Society, use the following lang-uage : 

^^Your Board consider as auspicious in the 
history of our denomination the union of Ameri- 
can and British Baptists in one common effort to 
give to the remotest nations the revelations of 
Infinite Wisdom, unadulterated by any admix- 
5 



50 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

ture of human superstition/^ (Third Annual 
Report, pp. 11, 39, 41.) 

Here is a hearty and unqualified approval of 
the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain. 
They speak of the ^^ union of British and Ameri- 
can Baptists'^ in the translation movement. But 
how could this be if they did not agree in the 
great cardinal principle ? In the appendix to 
the Third Annual Report, p. 65, the managers 
publish the entire constitution of the Translation 
Society, embracing the second article which we 
have quoted above. In their Fourth Report, 
p. 65, they welcome the institution in the follow- 
ing terms : 

^' The formation of this Society on the 24th of 
March, 1840, has imparted joy to our hearts, and 
vigor to our hopes concerning the speedy accom- 
plishment of that great object for which the 
American and Foreign Bible Society was con- 
stituted.'' 

The American and Foreign Bible Society fully 
approved of the action of the Board in every 



UMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 51 

step they took in reference to this Society. At 
their anniversary^ April 29th, 1841, the following 
resolution was unanimously passed : 

^^ Resolved, That we rejoice in the recent forma- 
tion of the Bible Translation Society in Great 
Britain, and hail it as an institution kindred to 
the American and Foreign Bible Society, and a 
valuable coadjutor in the Bible translation.'' 
(Fourth Annual Beport, p. 60.) 

How could this Society be ^^ kindred^' to the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, ^^and a 
valuable coadjutor in the work of Bible transla- 
tion, '^ if they did not agree in their position in 
regard to the translation of ha^ptizo ? 

In the Fifth Annual Report, p. 8, Dr. Cone, 
adopting the language of the secretary of the 
British Translation Society, says : '^ Our only 
business is to uphold immersionist versions, and 
give them as large a circulation as we can; and 
this becomes our business, because all the rest of 
the Christian world have thrown them away. 
This single object is our rallying - point. In 



52 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

these sentiments/' says Dr. Cone, " we cordially 
unite.'' 

I fear I may weary tlie reader witli the number 
of quotations. But there are so many ^'ttuistings 
and turnings^^ adopted in order to evade the 
true issue, and blind the public mind, that there 
is required '^ line upon line, and precept upon 
precept." The course adopted by the advocates 
of this movement reminds me of the stratagem 
adopted by Cacus in stealing the cattle of 
Hercules, and conducting them to his cave. He 
led them by the tail instead of the liornsj so that, 
if pursued, the pursuer, if he followed the track, 
might be sure to go the wrong way, and arrive at 
the wrong place. 

All the sophistry they can invent is employed 
to keep the public in the dark as to what they 
are really about; and so ^^they wrap it up," to 
use one of their own favorite quotations. But 
they cannot impose upon the public where the 
facts are known. Neither can they restrain the 
indignation ^Hhat will come down upon them 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 53 

with tremendGus power' ^ when the facts shall 
generally go abroad. They 

" May as well forbid the mountain pines 
To wag their high tops and make no noise 
When they are fretted with the gusts of heaven.*' 



5* 



54 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE MAIN DESIGN, CONTINUED. 

This will appear still more fully from addi- 
tional quotations from the publications of the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, and the 
American Bible Union, etc. And let the reader 
bear in mind what we announced in a former 
chapter, that we shall quote from the puhlications 
of the friends and advocates of this movement 
to sustain our position. They cannot object to 
this testimony. It is their own. 

I first make additional quotations from the 
documents of the American and Foreign Bible 
Society. Bev. E. Kincaid, missionary to China, 
in a letter to the Society, says : " It appears to 
me that the Baptists were driven out of the old 
societies unless they would pledge themselves to 
betray Christ — unless they would barter for 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 55 

money the great initiatory ordinance of the gospel. 
Why keep back from the nations any part of 
God's word ? Certainly there is no more doubt 
about the meaning of the word jSaTrri^o) than 
there is about dprog ; and to leave either untrans- 
lated, would be evidence of ignorance or dis- 
honesty/^ (Quar. Pap., p. 77.) 

Kev. Mr. Cushman, in a speech before the 
Society, says: ^^It (the English Bible) is not 
sufficiently defective, except in relation to baptism 
and church order, to be distrusted as a guide to 
truth and duty.^^ (Second Annual Eeport, Ap- 
pendix, p. 50.) 

Rev. Dr. Judson : ^^ I rejoice in the formation 
of the Bible Translation Society of England, and 
in the continued prosperity of the American and 
Foreign Bible Society. I verily believe that it 
was by the special providence of God that the 
old Bible societies were left to take the unjustifi- 
able course they did, in order that the peculiar 
truths which distinguish the Baptist denomina- 
tion might be brought forward in a manner un- 



56 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE, 

precedented; and ultimately triumph/^ (Fourth 
Annual Report, p. 67.) 

The Board of Managers use the following 
language : ^' The evils which have accrued from 
the introduction of a single word imposed by 
foreign influence^ and the bigotry of an earthly 
prince, no human mind can compute. Nearly 
all the European versions subsequently made 
have been conformed to the principles adopted by 
King James's translators ; and thus a word has 
been perpetuated from generation to generation, 
the precise meaning of which none but the 
learned could with certainty ascertain. And as 
these versions have, in most instances, been made 
by Pedobaptists, the error of sprinkling has ob- 
tained the blind and almost universal suffrage of 
what is called the Christian world.'^ 

The managers quote with approbation the 
following from Dr. Judson : '' Had the Greek 
word haptizo, which denotes the principal action 
in this ordinance, been translated in the English 
version of the New Testament, there would pro- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 57 

bably have been among English readers no dis- 
pute concerning its import. . . . But, un- 
happily, our translators have retained the original 
word, and contented themselves with merely 
changing its termination.'^ (Quar. Pap., p. 5.) 

The President of the Society, Dr. Cone, says, 
in his address to the Society in 1846 : ^^ In re- 
taining haptizo, they have done more injury to 
the cause of God and truth than if they had 
retained a dozen other old ecclesiastical words.'' 

The Board of Managers say : ^^ It is well 
known that there was not one Baptist among the 
forty-seven translators appointed by King James, 
and that we have never acknowledged that their 
version of the Scriptures was in all respects 
faithful. In common with other Christians, we 
have been willing to receive it only because that 
hitherto we had supposed that the time had not 
come to attempt an improved and faithful version, 
well knowing that in such an undertaking we 
must stand alone, and could hope for no assist- 
ance from Pedobaptists, whose denominational 
existence depends upon the non-translafion of 



58 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

those words in tlie New Testament which relate 
to the ordinance of baptism/^ (Second Annual 
Report; pp. 12, 13.) 

Rev. Dr. Dowling, in a speech before the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, says : ^^ The 
principle on which the American and Foreign 
Bible Society is based is destined ultimately to 
batter down the last pillar of Popery — infant 
sprinkling. Protestantism says : Tell the peoplev^ 
what Grod says : translate his book, that the 
people may know what he says : translate the 
whole of it, and translate it faithfully. Time 
will show how long the substitution of sprinkling 
for believers^ baptism will stand before the burn- 
ing torch of truth and the light of God*s word, 
when fully and faithfully translated.'^ (Ibid, pp. 
55, 56.) 

Dr. McClay, in his Saratoga address, says: 
'^ The difficulty which separated the Baptists and 
Pedobaptists in the Bible cause originated in the 
East Indies. The Pedobaptists, who came into 
the field long after our Baptist brethren, experi- 
enced difficulties in making converts to sprink- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 59 

ling, and in retaining them after tliey were made, 
in consequence of tlie word haptizo being rendered 
by a word signifying immerse in all our versions 
of the Scriptures/' 

Dr. McClay, in this same address, says : ^' We 
bad no band in making our Englisb version. It 
was made for us by Episcopalians; and though 
we consider it in the main an excellent version, 
yet we believe that great injustice has been done 
to the truth of God by concealing the meaning 
of baptism from the unlearned, who are the mass 
of the community. But the day may come, and 
perhaps it is at no great distance,^ when the Bap- 
tist denomination shall deem it their duty to give 
a version of the Sacred Scriptures in the English 
language, in which the word haptizo shall be 
faithfully translated to immerse, and thus give 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth in reference to this subject, that the un- 
learned as well as the learned may know the will 
of God and their duty.'' 

Hear Dr. Cone and Mr. Wyckoff, in a tract 
entitled "The^ Bible Translated.'' ^^Let a 



60 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Bible Society, like the American and Foreign, 
dare to say that haptizo means to immerse, and 
stamp their conviction upon the English Testa- 
ment, and a stimulus would be given to the 
inquiry, and a sanction to the truth, which would 
multiply manifold the numbers of those immersed 
into the name of the Father, and the Son, and 
Holy Spirit/^ 

I might give ten times the amount of the 
above quotations from the publications of the 
American and Foreign Bible Society ; but these 
must suffice in this place. And what do they 
most satisfactorily establish ? Do they not show 
that, from the beginning, there has been but one 
main idea, and that the substitution of immerse 
for baptize ? What is the grand objection urged 
against our translation ? It is not objected to 
so much for errors in general. The capital 
objection is, that Panri^G) was not translated 
immerse. Thus Dr. McClay : '^ Though we con- 
sider it in the main an excellent version, yet we 
believe that great injustice has been done to the 
truth of God by concealing the true meaning of 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 61 

laptism from the unlearned.'^ That is, the 
commonly received version would do very well if 
it were only right on the subject of haptism. 
Their hope of the destruction of the errors of 
sprinkling and infant baptism, and all the cor- 
ruptions existing in Pedobaptist Churches, (and 
these are many, according to their notion,) and 
the conversion of the world in the triumph of 
immersionist principles, is suspended upon put- 
ting immerse in the New Testament in the place 
of baptize. 

I will now call the attention of the reader to a 
few additional quotations from the publications of 
the American Bible Union. This Society, the 
reader will bear in mind, is a secession from the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, (Baptist,) 
as that is a secession from the American Bible 
Society. And that while, in common with the 
American and Foreign Bible Society, it seeks to 
secure only immersionist versions of the Scrip- 
tures in foreign languages, it at the same time 
aims to secure a version upon this principle in 
6 



62 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

English. The friends of this Society, however, 
deny that such is its object, or, at least, that this 
is its main design. If, however. Dr. Cone knew 
any thing of the main object of the movement, 
such is the character of the version they seek. 
Dr. Cone headed the secession from the American 
Bible Society, and was, till the secession from 
the American and Foreign Bible Society, in 
1850, the President of that institution; and he 
was the President of the American Bible Union 
from its organization, in 1850, till his death in 
1855. No man, therefore, could enjoy better 
opportunity of knowing the main design of the 
movement than Dr. Cone did. 

We have already quoted from his speech at the 
first anniversary of the American Bible Union, 
in 1850, in which he addresses his brethren as 
^^ Brethren and friends of immersionist versions 
of the Holy Scriptures in all languages, but 
especially iji the EnglishJ^ Now here the terms 
in which he addresses his brethren show the main 
purpose of their organization. They are addressed 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 63 

as ^^ friends of immersionist versions of tlie Holy 
Scriptures — especialli/ in English J ^ Did lie not 
know whom lie was addressing ? 

Hear Dr. Cone again^ in his speech at the 
second anniversary of the American Bible Union, 
October 2d, 1851 : ^^ Brethren and friends, the 
American Bible Union has a mission of grave 
responsibility. We are called in the provMence 
of God to employ our best efforts to procure^ 
print y and circulate faithful versions of the 
Scriptures in all lands. ^^ 

And we learn what Dr. C. means by faithful 
versions a little further along in the same speech. 
Hear him : " He (Dr. C.) has dared to say from 
this pulpit again and again, that Christian hap- 
tism is immersion only ; and that if right to 
preach it, it is right to print it — to print it in 
THE Bible ; for if it is not in the Bible, we have 
no right to preach it or print it as a part of God's 
revealed will to man.'' 

^^One of the most specious arguments that has 
been advanced against the correction of the com- 
mon version is, that thereby we must forfeit the 



64 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

name of Baptists. The words relating to the 
ordinance must of necessity be translated ; and 
because the common people will learn that it is 
the duty of believers to be immersed, therefore 
the term Baptist will cease to be the appellation 
of those who follow their Lord. This is not a 
necessary consequence. . . . The great thing is 
to follow Christ. ... To do this we must know 
what he commands. Does he command believers 
in Christ to be immersed in his name ? Where 
is the difference in criminality between printing 
it and preaching it ? If the latter be right, the 
former cannot be wrong. '^ '' How strange, how 
inexplicable, that any who wear this name should 
be afraid or ashamed to print what they believe 
and preach I ^^ 

'^ Since the English word baptize, according to 
our standard lexicographers, means to sprinMe, 
pour, asperse, christen, etc., the American 
Bible Union must come up to the help of the 
Lord against the mighty; take off the popish 
cover from his pure word; disabuse the public 
mind, led astray by doctors and dictionaries ; and, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 65 

among other revealed truths, show to all who 
understand our language that baptism is immer- 
sion onlj/^ 

Here ^^the main design'^ is boldly avowed 
and defended. If they should lose their name 
by substituting immerse for haptize^ (though not 
^^ a necessary consequence/^ as he thinks,) yet 
they must not be deterred. ^^The great thing is 
to follow Christ.^^ ^^If it is right to preach it, 
{immersion,') it is right to print \iJ^ And inas- 
much as it is not in the Bible, ^^it is right to 
PRINT it in the Bible :'' otherwise ^^it is not 
right to preach it, ov print it.'^ 

And, then, as the standard lexicographers are 
all wrong in the definitions they give to haptize, 
therefore ^Hhe American Bible Union must come 
up to the help of the Lord against the mighty,^' 
and show to those speaking our language who 
^^ are led astray by doctors and dictionaries, that 
baptism is immersion only,'' I would suggest 
that they take into consideration the propriety of 
attempting a new version of the ^'Doctors and 
Dictionaries'' If they could get them reformed 
6* 



66 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

to their notions, a great deal of trouble would be 
obviated in the prosecution of the enterprise in 
which they are engaged. The fact is, a new ver- 
sion of almost every thing will have to be secured 
before our immersionist friends can get along as 
they desire. 

Listen to Dr. Cone again, in his address before 
the Bible Union, October 6th, 1853 : '' In revis- 
ing the commonly received English version, the 
real point of controversy between us and the anti- 
revisionists is the question whether haptizo shall 
he translated or not. Settle that point on the 
side of the truth : allow the real meaning of the 
word to appear in all its plainness and simplicity, 
and then no one but a Roman Catholic will object 
to the whole Bible being brought as near the 
original as possible.^' 

Now, supposing Dr. Cone to have been posted 
in regard to the main design of the movement, 
this quotation settles the question. 

In order that I may show that the main design 
on account of which the movement was begun 
has not been abandoned, I make a few extracts 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 67 

from the Bible Union Reporter for January, 1854. 
This is one of the organs of the Union. I quote 
from pages 81, 82. In a speech delivered before 
the American Bible Union, by the Rev. J. H. 
Chandler, a missionary to Siam, he gives an ac- 
count of a late translation of the Scriptures into 
the Siamese language, by a Mr. Jones. He says 
that in this version, ^^In speaking of John the 
forerunner of Christ, he is called ^ John the ^m- 
merser f and in all those passages where haptize, 
haptizedj haptism occur, immei^se, immersed, 
immersion are used : so that the word Baptist is 
nowhere to be found in the book : no, not even 
on the English title-page.^' 

'^ However others may be liable to the charge 
of making Baptist Bibles and Testaments, I am 
sure it cannot be brought against Mr. Jones ; for 
you will see that there is nothing about Baptists 
in any part of his translation. The converts in 
Siam do not, so far as I am aware, know that 
there is such a body as the Baptist denomina- 
tion.^' ! I ! 

He then gives a few extracts from the Siamese 



68 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

version — Matt. iii. 1 : ^^ In those days came Jolin 
the imme7'ser.^^ Matt. iii. 11 : ^^ I indeed im- 
merse you in water ; but He will immerse you in 
the Holy Spirit and fire.'^ 

The editor of the Reporter adds : '^ By these 
extracts from our Siamese version, it will be seen 
that the jprinciples for which the Bihle Union is 
contending, are the same which control Baptist 
missionaries in Asia.^^ The principles recognized 
by the Baptist missionary in Siam, controlled him 
to use a word for j3a7TTi^G) which means immerse, 
and nothing else. And if this is the same prin- 
ciple for which the Bible Union is contending, 
then it will control them to put immerse in the 
place of haptize in their proposed new version of 
the English Scriptures. 

I quote again from a speech delivered by the 
Rev. John L. Waller, LL.D., before the Revision 
Association^ at Nashville, Tenn., April 10th, 
1854, as published in the Bible Union Reporter 
for May, 1854, pp. 152, 153 : " The word (bap- 
tism') has no m,odal signification. In this respect 
it means any thing and every thing, and therefore 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 69 

nothing. It is a word of no mode at all. It is 
in vain for my Baptist brethren to tell me that 
immersion is plainly taught in the English ver- 
sion. I grant that it is. A child may read it 
there as if written in lines t)f light. But it is 
not taught by the word haptize. That word 
bears no testimony on the subject. It is as silent 
^s an Egyptian mummy. 

^^ It is in vain to reason with the individual 
who seriously insists that haptize means to im- 
merse ; or that it has any modal meaning what- 
ever, since the Elizabethan age. We might as 
well attempt to teach logic to an orang-outang as 
to impart the laws of language to the man who 
would gravely dispute a position so self-evident. 
Such an individual is surely delivered over to 
believe a lie.^' 

If the above be correct reasoning, what is the 
only alternative ? Why, according to the '^ prin- 
ciple^^ which the American and Foreign Bible 
Society was organized " to vindicate,^ ^ and which 
the American Bible Union, as the successor of 
the American and Foreign Bible Society, as far 



70 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

as the English Scriptures are concerned^ are most 
solemnly pledged to vindicate, they must substi- 
tute immerse. And is not the Revision Associa- 
tion, before which this address of Pr. W. was 
delivered, coordinatjo with the American Bible 
Union ? Are not its friends cooperating with the 
Union in ^^the greatest enterprise of the age?" 
Have they ever disclaimed its great principle ? 
Na}^, verily; but, on the contrary, they have 
affirmed it in the most conclusive manner. And 
yet, many of the advocates of the movement 
positively deny that the main design is to substi- 
tute immerse for haptize. How strange, that 
men ij^rofessing ho nesti/, let nlone godliness^ should 
be guilty of such shuffling ! 

But listen to the following, from Tract No. 13, 
written by the Bev. Mr. Judd, and published by 
the American Bible Union : ^' Editors and their 
correspondents, and many other teachers in Israel, 
have taken much pains to make the people be- 
lieve that the great object of the American Bible 
Union, and of the whole revision enterprise, is to 
substitute the word immerse for baptize, in our 



IMMERBIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 71 

common version. . . . But the idea has no found- 
ation in fact. It has been formed in direct oppo- 
sition to the public official documents and uniform 
action of the Union/' And then, in order to sus- 
tain this disclaimer, he gives the rules by which 
the translators of the new version are bound : 

^^1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, 
as that text expressed it to those who understood 
the original Scriptures at the time they were first 
written, must be translated by corresponding 
words and phrases, so far as they can be found in 
the vernacular tongue of those for whom the ver- 
sion is designed, witll the least possible obscurity 
or indefiniteness. 

^^ 2. The common English version must be 
made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary 
interference with the established phraseology 
shall be avoided ; and only such alterations shall 
be made as the exact meaning of the inspired 
text and the existing state of the language may 
require. '^ 

And then, after commenting on these rules, he 
says : '^ It must be seen, therefore, that the Bible 



72 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Union Lave never joined issue with their oppo- 
nents on this point, as constituting any essential 
or determined part in the grand enterprise of 
revision.'^ 

Now, we consider the inference thus drawn 
from the rules as by no means legitimate ; for, 
although they do not in so many words require 
the substitution of immerse for haptize^ yet 
they do not prohibit it directly or indirectly; 
and the translators may therefore put immerse in 
the place of haptize in perfect conformity with 
the rules. And that this will be done is inferred 
from a quotation from Dr. Kendrick, in this very 
tract, as authority for the revision movement : 
^^It is thought that the English Scriptures are 
understood on the subject of haptism. This is a 
mistake. The few who are acquainted with Bap- 
tist principles understand them ; but the mass of 
the people do not. A translation of the word 
haptizOj and a general circulation of the Scrip- 
tures with such a translation, would do more 
than all other books to enlighten the masses on 
the subject.'' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 73 

How does tlie positive denial above quoted and 
this quotation^ setting forth one main object of 
the movement, agree together ? Let the candid 
reader determine. 

Take another specimen of the game of Jesuit- 
ism they are trying to play in their effort to evade 
the main issue. 

Dr. Williams, of New York, one of the most 
eminent Baptist ministers in the world, wrote, in 
behalf of his church, a letter to the x\merican 
Bible Union, in reply to a request sent the 
church by the Union ^' for prayer and aid." 
The letter is published in Tract No. 10, by the 
Union, in connection with their reply to it 
through Dr. Cone and others. Here is Dr. Wil- 
liams's opinion of ^Hlie main design^ 

^^The alteration most sought by some esteemed 
brethren among you was in the word describing 
the first ordinance of the Christian Church. And 
by laying down, as your Society is said by its 
friends and officers to have laid it down, that the 
rendering of the G-reek word for haptism by 
another one is no longer held ^an open ques 
7 



74 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

tion/ but that; in effect^ immerse must take the 
place of haptize, does not your enterprise incur 
the very censure which your advocates cast upon 
King James for his instructions to translators? 
You limit the consciences and restrain the un- 
fettered judgment of your revisers/^ 

Here is the answer of the Bible Union to this, 
with Dr. Cone's name to it as chairman of the 
committee who drew it up : ^^ To say that we 
limit the consciences and restrain the unfettered 
judgment of our revisers^ ... is to assert what 
you cannot prove, and to testify to what you have 
no reason to believe. . . . Your charge against 
the Bible Union on this point is as unfounded 
as it is unjust ; and we cannot resist the convic- 
tion that the cause which arrays its ablest advo- 
cateS; armed with bold assertions, against the 
plain documentary evidence of undeniable facts, 
must be at war with truth.'' 

But, strange to say, in the same tract in which 
this language is used, they most clearly admit all 
that Dr. Williams has charged. Dr. Williams in 
his letter had quoted Dr. Carson against revision. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 75 

They quote from Dr. Carson, in order to show 
that he was in favor of it, as follows : " Luke 
xi. 08. He says, ^The passage there ought to 
have been translated — '^ And when the Pharisee 
saw it, he marvelled that he was not immersed 
before dinner/' ' Speaking of Mark vii. 4, 
where our version has, ' Except they wash they 
eat not,' Carson says it ought to have been trans- 
lated, ^ Except they dip themselves they eat not/ 
And what our version renders ^ washings,^ he says 
ought to be translated ^ immersions,^ Speaking 
of those who understand only the English, lan- 
guage, he says, ^They do not understand the 
original, and the adoption of the words haptize 
and baptism can teach them nothing. Trans- 
lators, by adopting the Greek word, have con- 
trived to hide the meaning from the unlearned.' " 
Here they adduce Carson as in favor of re- 
vision ; but how is Carson in favor of revision, if, 
as they say, the putting of immerse in the place 
of baptize constitutes no part of the revision 
enterprise ? for all they quote from Carson 
relates to that very thing. Out of their own 



76 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

mouthS; therefore, I prove that the disclaimer 
above quoted is utterly false. 

Again, in the same series of Tracts, No. 6, en- 
titled, ^^The Bible Union's plan of Revision 
vindicated,^' by J. W. Lynd, D. D., the author 
shows the importance and necessity of revision by 
exhibiting the benefits which will flow from it. 
One among the number of these ^'henejits'^ (?) is, 
according to Dr. Lynd, that immerse will take the 
place of baptize. Hear him : 

'^ I will give another instance in the word 'bap- 
tize.^ There can be no doubt that this word, in 
English religious literature, has become generic. 
It would be time lost, on this occasion, to argue 
this point with any one who may be bold enough to 
deny it. The word is currently used for sprink- 
ling by the largest part of the Christian world. 
It may be said that this is a wrong use of the 
word ; but that does not change the fact. Bap- 
tists use it to signify immersion only ; but Bap- 
tists cannot change the literature of English 
Christendom. I ought, perhaps, to except a few, 
who hold that haptizo has no representative in 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 77 

the English language, and that it does not mean 
to purify, to sprinkle J to pour, or to immerse, but 
to baptize. With this exception, the Baptist op- 
ponents of revision, among all evangelical Chris- 
tians of this country, stand alone as to the defini- 
tiveness of the English word hapiize. All the 
Pedobaptists, all revisionists, regard its present 
use as generic. And yet, most strange to say, 
they wish to retain haptize, and restore its original 
meaning, not perceiving their own full admission 
that its present use is generic. 

'^ If the Greek word ha'ptizo mean immerse — 
if the authority of good scholarship is on this 
side, the English reader should have the benefit 
of such a rendering, and those who practice dif- 
ferently should have the privilege of sustaining 
their practice by their own opinion of the origi- 
nal word. 

''Let such a revision, sustained by proper 
authority, go forth to the world, and the design 
of the ordinance will be more clearly seen. As 
that is understood, it will sweep away the error 
of baptizing unconscious babes. 'Buried with 
7* 



78 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

him by immersion into death/ will then express 
to the minds of men what before they could not 
conceive/^ 

What does this extract show ? Certainly that 
haptize is to be turned out of the New Testament, 
because it is a generic word ; and immerse must 
be put in its place, because it is specific. 

Is it likely that Dr. Lynd is ignorant of the 
design of the movement ? 

It will be satisfactory to give quotations from 
eminent Baptist ministers who are opposed to 
this movement. And it is a remarkable fact that 
the large majority of the most learned and gifted 
ministers of the Baptist Church in this country, 
and perhaps in Europe, are most violently opposed 
to this movement. This fact of itself should have 
great influence with Baptists as regards the 
merits of the movement. 

In a pamphlet written by John Dowling, D.D., 
and entitled ''The Old-fasliioned BibUy^ he uses 
the following language : " Various other correc- 
tions of the text have been recommended in the 
proposed ^New Version.' Believing, however, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 79 

most firmly as I do, that these suggestions have 
been put in only as makeweights, in order to aid 
the great object of the substitution of ^immerse' 
for ' baptize/ I shall not on the present occasion 
enter into any examination of the correctness of 
these criticisms/^ — p. 10. 

'^ I shall now proceed, therefore, to state my 
reasons why we should oppose the publication, by 
this great denominational Society, [the American 
and Foreign Bible Society,] of a version of the 
English Scriptures, the distinguishing feature of 
which should be the substitution of immerse for 
haptize wherever it occurs in the New Testa- 
ment.^^ — p. 13. 

Dr. Dowling gives as the fourth reason why he 
is opposed to a new version with the word im- 
merse substituted for baptize, ^^ Because the word 
baptize is itself, to all intents and purposes, an 
English word.'' — p. 20. 

'^ But turn the words baptize, and baptism, and 
Baptist out of the Bible, and what becomes of 
the authority for our name ? We are Baptists no 
longer, for we repudiate the very word ; nor can 



so IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

we with the slightest show of consistency expel 
the word from our Bible^ and then cling to it as 
the name of our denomination. 

^^Once more, then, I repeat, if you expel this 
word from your Bible you must give up the name 
of your sect; and if you refuse to do this, other 
denominations will do it for you. You must call 
yourselves Immersers; or if that, too, is rejected 
because it is a transferred word, then you must 
call yourselves Dippers. ^^ — pp. 32, 33. 

Rev. Dr. Fuller says : ^^ The moment we resort 
to a new translation, we sacrifice the whole argu- 
ment, and virtually say, as the book now is we 
cannot make out our cause : we must, therefore, 
follow the Campbellites, and the Socinians, and 
others, and make a Bible to suit ourselves. '^ 

llev. Dr. Malcolm, as quoted by Dr. Dowling : 
"Were I to utter all the objections which occur 
to me as to the proposed ' Version,' (!) I should 
want a week for it. When the world is allowed 
to say that tve needed, as Baptists, a New Version, 
to sustain ourselves, then is our right arm broken 
in the fight. I can add no more than to say, ] 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 81 

shall spurn from me the proposed publication^ and 
the Society which gives it birth/^ 

Eev. Dr. Hague says : '' If we should accom- 
plish the proposed purpose, and change the word 
baptize into immei'se, and should win the suf- 
frages of the world, in a few years we should 
have to do the same thing, and make new 
changes.'^ 

I might add many additional quotations from 
the most distinguished Baptist ministers in the 
world, in which they express their unqualified 
opposition to the movement ; and the prime 
reason of their opposition is declared to be that 
the design of the movement is to put immerse in 
the New Testament in the place of hajptize, and 
that this is the 7nain design. 

The disclaimer of the main design contained 
in the extract we have made from Tract No. 10, 
containing Dr. Williams's letter against revision, 
and the reply of the Bible Union to that letter, 
was drawn up by Dr. Cone as chairman of the 
committee. The reader will have seen that 
Dr. Williams is substantially charged with false- 



82 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

hood in saying that the main design of the move- 
ment is to put immerse in the place of haptize. 
NoW; in what light does this disclaimer place 
Dr. Cone and the Union ? 

This same Dr. Cone said, in 1842, ^^ Our only 
business is to uphold immersionist versions. This 
single object is our rallying-point.^' 

This same Doctor said, in 1849, ^^Let a Bible 
Society like the American and Foreign dare to 
say that haptizo means to immerse, and stamp 
their conviction upon the New Testament,'^ etc. 

The same gentleman, in 1850, before the 
American Bible Union : ^'Brethren and friends 
of immersionist versions of the Scriptures in all 
languages, and especially in the English, the 
American and Foreign Bible Society was organ- 
ized to vindicate a principle : ... in ac- 
cordance with this principle, haptizo should be 
rendered by words signifying immerse, immer- 
sion,^^ etc. 

The same man, in 1851 : ^^The American Bible 
Union must come up to the help of the Lord 
against the mighty; . . . and show to all who 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 83 

understand our language, that baptism is immer- 
sion ONLY. ... If it is right to preach it, it is 
right to print it — to print IT IN the Bible/' 

The same person, in 1852 : '' Having directed 
their missionaries among the heathen to translate 
haptizo and its cognates by words signifying im- 
merse, immersion, etc., they cannot be so incon- 
sistent as to despise or reject immersion in their 
own vernacular tongue.^' 

Hear him in 1853 : ^^ In revising the com- 
monly received version, the real point of contro- 
versy between us and the anti-revisionists is the 
question whether haptizo shall be translated or 
not.'' 

And yet, this same Dr. S. H. Cone assists in 
getting up a paper in reply to Dr. Williams, and 
puts his name to it as chairman, and sends it 
abroad to the world, denying most absolutely what 
he has so often, and in so many different forms, 
declared most positively and unequivocally to be 
true ! 

And Dr. Cone is not peculiar among the ad- 
vocates of this, ^^ the greatest enterprise of the 



84 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

age/^ for this ''hlowing hot and cold out of the 
same mouth, ^^ It is a distinctive feature in the 
tactics of the movement. It affords a most im- 
pressive illustration of the recklessness into which 
even good men may be led in the advocacy of an 
ultra measure. 

A good cause does not need such expedients. 
It will always be prejudiced by their adoption. 
The cause which demands such aid must be a 
bad one. Truth suffers nothing by being fully 
and fairly exposed. On the contrary, it will 
always be the gainer by such exposure. Men 
who are satisfied of the goodness of their cause 
are naturally inclined to defend it on its own 
merits. They will not be afraid to do so. They 
will prefer such a course, as a matter of policy, 
if for nothing else. If these sentiments be cor- 
rect, we infer that the revision movement is a bad 
cause, and that its advocates have not full confi- 
dence in it. They do not expect to succeed by a 
fair and candid course. They consequently do 
not attempt it. 

In reading their publications, it is very evident 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 85 

that they were much more candid ia announciDg 
the main design in the outset of the movement 
than at present. Public sentiment came down 
upon them ^*with such tremendous power '^ that 
they became frightened ; and they have deemed 
it good policy to change the mode of operation, 
so as to keep the main design more in the back- 
ground; and the Jesuitical course now adopted is 
the result. 

'' The old-fashioned Bible/' as we still have it, 
very justly declares that ^^ He that doeth truth 
cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made 
manifest that they are wrought in Grod.^' But 
^^ Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, 
neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should 
be reprove d."" 

The fact is, as is apparent to every one ac- 
quainted with the history of this movement, it is 
a last resort to sustain the sinJcing cause of tm- 
jnersion. The advocates of ^^ dip and nothing 
but dip'' have found that the commonly received 
version does not sustain them; and therefore 
they must either give up this strange dogma, and " 
8 



86 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

others connected with it, or they must have a 
new version. They must have a Bible to suit 
themselves, as other fanatical ultraists have. 
They acknowledge that the Bible, the diction- 
aries, the commentaries, the doctors, and a ma- 
jority of the so-called Christian world, are against 
them; and they are constrained to do something; 
and the plan is to begin by reforming the Bible ; 
and then, perhaps, they will proceed to reform 
every thing else that does not accord with their 
peculiar notion of ^^dip, and nothing but dip.'' 
They have truly a Herculean task before them ; 
but then, what cannot men do with but one single 
idea to tax their powers ? 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 87 



CHAPTER V. 

THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT. 

An expedient adopted by the advocates of 
this movement is the representation that a large 
number of the learned men (?) engaged in 
the work of revision arc Pcdobaptists. The de- 
sign of this is to make the impression that the 
movement is catholic and not sectarian. And 
this statement is made so as to make the impres- 
sion upon those not posted up in the matter, 
not that individuals belonging to Pedobaptist 
Churches, upon their own individual responsi- 
bility, are in the employ of the American Bible 
Union as revisers, but that they are thus engaged 
by the countenance and even approval of the 
Churches to which they belong. And these 
statements are made not merely by the subordi- 
nate and inferior apologists of the movement, but 



88 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

even by the leaders in the enterprise, and by the 
American Bible Union itself officially. 

I quote the following from a speech of the 
Rev. J. S. Backus, delivered before the American 
Bible Union at its fifth anniversary, 1855, (Bible 
Union Reporter, p. 91,) and of course endorsed 
and published by the Union : 

^^ I like the revision movement, because of its 
non-sectarian character. 

^^All denominations of Christians would not 
unite to revise the Scriptures, and no one denomi- 
nation could have undertaken it alone, without 
exciting the jealousy of others, and having all 
their prejudices arrayed against the work as a 
sectarian thing, however faithfully done. But 
the Bible Union movement is not a denominational 
movement,'^ etc. 

Now, let the reader recur to the mass of evi- 
dence already adduced, proving most conclusively 
the falsity of this statement, and he will have 
an exhibition of a case of as unscrupulous and 
glaring effrontery as was ever practiced in the 
whole history of Jesuitism. Sometimes they 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 89 

strive to make the impression that all dcnomioa- 
tioiis of Christians are united in the movement ; 
and then none — not even their own — is engaged 
in it! 

Listen to the following from the Union's ^'Ad- 
dress for Prayer and Aid/' signed by Dr. Cone as 
President, and published in the Bible Union Re- 
porter fur January, 1854 : ^' Distinguished scholars 
are employed by the American Bible Union in 
the revision of the common version, holding 
their ecclesiastical connections with eight deno- 
minations : Church of England; Old School 
Preshyterians ; Disciples, or Reformers; Asso- 
ciate Reformed Preshyterians; Seventh-Day 
Baptists ; American Protestant Episcopalians ; 
Baptists ; German Reformed Church. 

^^ Written contracts have been made with more 
than twenty scholars; and many of these, in com- 
pliance with the stipulations, have made engage- 
ments with others to work with them, so that the 
number of scholars actually engaged in the ser- 
vice of the Union does not vary far from forty. 

'' More than half the work already done has 
8* 



90 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

been performed by scholars not connected with 
immersionist denominations; and we anticipate 
that this will hold true until the New Testament 
is finished. 

^^ Seven of the revisors under written contract 
reside in Great Britain, and three of these are 
connected with the Church of England.^' 

In the Reporter of April, 1855, I find the 
Jlethodist Church in the list of the Churches 
from which the translators are selected. 

The design of the publication from which the 
above extract is taken, is to make the impression 
that the movement is not denominational or sec- 
tarian, but that all the evangelical denominations 
are engaged in it, as well as some that are not 
evangelical. 

There is no intimation that though individuals 
from nine denominations are engaged as trans- 
lators, yet only in the case of those from the Bap- 
tists, Disciples, and Seventh-Day Baptists, can 
any one of them represent the denomination to 
which he belongs. And the fact, therefore, that 
they have translators from these six Pedobaptist 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 91 

denominations does not affect in the slightest 
decree the sectarian immersionist character of 
the movement. For who began the movement ? 
Baptists and Campbellites. Who have been the 
officers of the American and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety, and of the American Bible Union, up to 
this time ? Why, none but Baptists and Camp- 
bellites. And, therefore, these Pedobaptist trans- 
lators are employed by Baptists and Campbellites 
to do their work. They '^ are employed under 
written contract/^ They are getting well paid, 
perhaps, for the work they are doing. 

But let us see what Dr. Cone thought about 
getting Pedobaptist aid in 1839. Listen to him : 
'^ Well knowing that in such an undertaking we 
must stand alone, and could hope for no assist- 
ance from Pedobaptists, whose denominational 
existence depends upon the non-translation of 
those words in the New Testament which relate 
to the ordinance of baptism.^' 

According to the ^ ^Address for Prayer and 
Aid,^^ Dr. Cone did not hioiv so well as he 
thought he did when he uttered this language. 



92 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

He tbouglit in 1839 that the iminersionists must 
stand alone. Now he finds men from six of the 
Pedobaptist denominations standing side bj side 
with the Union ; yea^ are actually employed under 
written contract in doing the great work of re- 
vision ! Indeed, they are destined to do the 
greater part of it ! Well, indeed, the state 
of things is much better than could have been 
expected. But how are we to account for this 
wonderful result ? Have these worthy Pedo- 
baptist divines and scholars found that they can 
engage in this work without demolishing the de- 
nominational existence of the Churches to which 
they belong? Have they become convinced that 
they can assist in making the immersionists a 
Bible to suit them, and yet compromise no prin- 
ciple — especially as they are ^Qiiing good salaries 
for their learned and pious labor ? Or is it a fact, 
that their pecuniary necessities are so pressing that 
they are reconciled to dispense with conscience 
and principle for a season, that they may make 
a little to save them from want ? Here is a dif- 
ficulty which the ethics we have learned from '^tlie 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 93 

old-fasliioncd Bible' ^ will not enable us to solve 
favorably to tbese Pedobaptist translators, we 
fear, with tbe ligbt we liave in regard to tbeir case. 

But, seeing that Dr. Cone has been so egregi- 
ously mistaken in his calculations as to the rela- 
tion the Pedobaptists would sustain to this move- 
ment, let us see if another of the great leaders 
has not been equally so. Dr. Cone was the 
President of the American Bible Union. I 
quote from one of the Vice-Presidents, Mr. A. 
Campbell, in his address to the Bible Convention 
at Memphis, Tenn., as published in the Millennial 
Harbinger for June, 1852. Hear him : 

^^I am fully of the opinion that those prac- 
ticing the immersion of believers are the only 
people that can make a really valuable and faith- 
ful translation of the New Testament. They 
have in Protestant Christendom the only com- 
manding and favorable stand-point for such a 
work. Their eyes are couched. They can see 
what no man looking through the leather spec- 
tacles of Pedobaptism and Pedo-rantism can see 
in the Christian institution. I speak experiment- 



94 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

ally as well as theoretically, having been on the 
top of Mount Sinai before I stood upon the top 
of Mount Zion. I know the horizon of both 
these time-honored summits. I therefore silence 
all cavil as to their incompetency; and strongly 
declare the conviction that they, and they only, 
can furnish a version worthy of the age/' 
^^Pcdohaptists and Baptists loill never agree to 
make a neio version. Not one Pedobaptist will 
touch the ark of our sanctuary, fearing he might 
be stricken dead. Why should he ? How could 
he ? It would be suicidal on his part to raise the 
tower that would certainly fall upon himself. If 
an angel in disguise should substitute immerse 
for haptize^ he would say he came not from the 
skies. He would not, true to his party, improve 
the volume in any thing that would crush him in 
every thing dear to him as a Pedobaptist. Such 
politicians form no such entangling alliances. 
While it is a show of generosity or catholicity on 
our part to invite him, he will, with all complai- 
sance, say, with one of olden time, ' I pray you, 
sir, have me excused.' None but immersionists 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 95 

can unite in this work, and none but they could 
do justice to the subject/' 

Let the reader compare the above with the 
language of the ^^Address for Prayer and Aid/' 
and it will appear that Mr. Campbell has been as 
much mistaken in his calculations as the Presi- 
dent, Dr. Cone. 

And what makes the blunder of Mr. Campbell 
the more remarkable is, that it has been com- 
mitted very recently — only about two years ago. 
Mr. Campbell himself, it is believed, is one of the 
translators. And at the time this language was 
uttered, some at least of these leather- spectacled 
men were in the employ of the Union as trans- 
lators. It is very strange that he should not have 
been aware that he had some of these hlind 
gentlemen as his colleagues in making " a trans- 
lation wortliy of the age.^* 

'^Pedohaptists and Baptists will never agree to 
malce a new version^^^ says Mr. Campbell. But 
they have agreed to do so, according to the 
American Bible Union, through Dr. Cone and 
others of her advocates. ^' Not one Pedobaptist 



96 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



will touch, the ark of our sanctuary, fearing 
he might be stricken dead/^ Yet not one but 
many^ reckless of the bolt that may strike them 
^^ dead^^ are not only toiicMng the Baptist ark, 
according to the advocates of the movement, but 
have hold of it with both hands, and are, indeed, 
chiefly concerned in securing for it a destination 
in the water, which its friends so much desire. 
^- Why should he V asks Mr. Campbell. Why, 
in order to get the money , if for nothing else. 
^^ How could he V^ he asks again. AVhy, simply 
by spurning all the dictates of honor and princi- 
ple, and submitting to the dictates, not, it is true, 
of King James or the bishops, but of the Ame- 
rican Bible Union. "It would be suicidal on 
his part to raise the tower that would certainly 
fall upon himself.'^ And yet Pedobaptists are 
not only assisting to raise the tower that shall 
elevate the immersionists, as they fondly hope, 
into the heaven of ecclesiastical exclusiveness, 
but they are chiefly concerned in the erection of 
the tower, though it may fall on them and break 
their ecclesiastical heads. ^^ If an angel in disr 



1 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 97 

guise should substitute immerse for baptize^ he 
would say he came not from the skies/' But he 
is not going to stand off and await the contin- 
gency referred to. He is engaged in helping to 
put immeo^se for baptize. He is not going to wait 
for an angel to do it. '' He would not, true to 
his party, improve the volume in any thing that 
would crush him in every thing dear to him as a 
Pedobaptist.^' Yet he has engaged in what is 
claimed to be an effort to improve the volume, at 
least to make it teach immersion for baptism ^ 
whether it '^ crushes MmJ^ in every thing dear to 
him as a Pedobaptist, or in any thing, or not. It 
is not likely that those Pedobaptists engaged in 
this work hold any thing that they claim to 
believe or practice of such worth that they would 
not be willing to sell it for money. For some 
reason these Pedobaptists are willing to be 
crushed. '^ Such politicians form no such entan- 
gling alliances.^' And yet, according to the 
address, they have formed just such an alliance. 
^^ While it is a show of generosity or catholicity 

on our part to invite him, he will, with all com- 
9 



98 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

plaisance, say, with one of olden time, ^I pray 
you, sir, have me excused/ '' But, according to 
the address of the Union, there are Pedobaptists 
who have not asked to be excused. For the sake 
of the money, they have entered into '^ written 
contract^ ^ to ^^ come up to the help of the Lord 
against the mighty,'' in this enterprise. 

The hypocritical '^ show of generosity or catJio- 
licity^^ spoken of by Mr. Campbell might have 
been spared. They might have invited Pedo- 
baptists candidly and sincerely^ had they known 
they could have been bought for money. 

These men, according to Mr. Campbell and 
the address, have turned traitors, for some con- 
sideration deemed by them of more value than 
the interests of their party ; and I suppose it must 
be the money they get. The love of money was 
so strong in Judas, that even for the small sum 
of ^^ thirty pieces of silver" he sold his Master to 
his enemies. And as human nature, under 
similar circumstances, is the same in all ages, 
there are, no doubt, men in Pedobaptist Churches 
who would be willing to sell the interests of their 



^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 99 

party for money. And it is no reflection upon 
Pedobaptist Churches to make this admission. 

Mr. Campbell makes the case still stronger. 
He says : ^^ I am fully of the opinion that those 
practicing the immersion of believers are the only 
people that can make a really valuable transla- 
tion. They have . . . the only commanding 
stand-point for such a work. Their eyes are 
couched. They can see what no man looking 
through the leather spectacles of Pedobaptism 
and Pedo-rantism can see in the Christian institu- 
tion/^ They have no leather spectacles of any 
kind on. They can see well enough to do the 
work. Mr. Campbell speaks not merely from 
theory, but from experience. He is a man of 
experience. He knows what he says. He speaks 
what he does know, and testifies to what he has 
seen, i, e., since his eyes were ^' couched J ^ He 
knows from experience the horizon of both the 
time-honored summits of Mount Sinai and Mount 
Zion. He was once on the summit of Mount 
Sinai, amidst its clouds and darkness, with those 
same ^^ leather spectacles^^ on. But, fortunately 



iOO IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

tor Mr. Campbell, he long ago descended from 
I/hat terrible summit, and passed tbe Jordan, and 
has now gotten to the summit of Mount Zion, 
leaving his old "Pedohaptist and Pedo-rantist 
leather spectacles'^ either in the Jordan, or on the 
other side. And from his own experience he 
can testify that none but those who, like himself, 
have made this transition by passing through 
^Hhe Jordan's yielding wave,^ and getting rid of 
their '' leather spectacles,^^ could '' do justice to 
the subject.^^ None but such as stand with 
Mr. Campbell on the Mount Zion of Immersion 
are free from ignorance and ^prejudice. None 
but the immersionists are honest enough to make 
^^ a translation worthy of the age/^ None but 
they understand the languages in which the 
Scriptures were originally written sufficiently 
well. 

Well, the question is, how will they get along 
with these Pedos, with uncouched eyes, sitting 
away off yonder on the cold and dark ^^ Mount 
Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage,^^ 
with their 'Heather sj^ectacles^^ over their eyes, 



1 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. lOl 

(if they have any,) and yet employed, under pa i/^ 
to assist iu doing '^a great work?'^ 

The friends of the movement must be, I think, 
hard put to it to have to pay such men to perform 
a work which they are not capable of performing. 

And is it not well known that one of the chief 
objections to King Jameses translation is, that it 
was made by Pedobaptists, and especially Episco- 
palians — that ^^ there was not one Baptist among 
the translators V^ And now the boast w>, that not 
only are there Pedobaptists among their trans- 
lators, but that the majority of them are Pedo- 
baptists. It is stated in the ^ ^Address for Prayer 
and Aid,^^ that '' more than half the work already 
done has been performed by scholars not con- 
nected with immersionist denominations; and we 
anticipate that this will hold true until the New 
Testament is finished. ^^ 

There must be a great scarcity of learned men 
among the advocates of the movement, that they 
have to take men so utterly unsuitable for the 
work, according to their own showing. There is 

a question of morals involved which demands 

9* 



102 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

some attention. If these Pedobaptist translators 
are really in favor of the main design of this 
movement^ (and are helping it forward with all 
their mighty) i. e., ultra-immersionists, and jet, 
at the same time, are identified with Pedobaptist 
denominations, professing to believe in Pedobap- 
tist doctrines, and conforming to Pedobaptist 
usages, in what light do they appear in a moral 
point of view ? Professing to be Pedobaptists to 
the world,' and yet secretly engaged in helping to 
make a translation of the Holy Scriptures, on 
immersionist and anti-Pedobaptist principles, 
which shall (as the advocates of the movement 
contend it will) overturn every principle which 
they profess to hold sacred, and which, in their 
vows of ordination, they have most solemnly 
pledged to vindicate and teach ! 

But it is said that they are left unrestrained to 
make such a version as they believe to be legiti- 
mate. But, then, will not their work pass in 
review before a Committee of the Union, consti- 
tuted for this very purpose? Certainly this is 
the case, as will be shown in another place. And 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 103 

if the work of these revisers does not come up 
to the standard of a faithful translation, as re- 
gards jSanrt^o), or any other word, will they not 
be bound to make it do so ? And so it will not 
be their work at all which shall be finally endorsed 
by the American Bible Union, unless they should 
do it to suit the Union. 

But it may be said again, that only those por- 
tions of the Scriptures which do not contain the 
words involving the issue will be assigned to 
these '^leather-spectacled'^ men: that they will 
not be regarded as competent to translate any thing 
but Moses and the Prophets; and hardly them. 
This will not relieve them from moral difficulties. 
In this case they are chargeable with aiding and 
abetting a measure whose main design they pro- 
fess to condemn. 

In any view that can be taken of the case of 
these men, judging from what the advocates of 
revision have said of them, they are either un- 
principled men, willing to sell themselves and 
their principles for money; or if good men, in 
their intentions and purposes, they are very defec- 



104 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

live in their views of moral obligation, and have 
consequently been misled. In any view that we 
are able to take of their case, they are not the 
men to make a version of the Holy Scriptures, to 
be the rule of the faith and the practice of the 
Church and the world. Men whose views are so 
defective, or whose consciences are so elastic, are 
not the men to be trusted in a matter of so much 
importance. 

And, strange to say, the advocates of this 
movement trumpet this thing abroad with the 
highest degree of triumph, as a proof of the non- 
sectarian character of it, in order that they may 
gain proselytes, and get prayers offered in their 
behalf, and secure aid in money to help pay these 
very worthy and consistent gentlemen for the 
work they are performing ! 

But who are the translators ? The names of 
some of them have escaped from the profound 
secrecy which had enshrouded them ; but as to 
the majority of them, we know nothing. The 
policy, from the beginning, has been to observe 
the profoundest secrecy. But who are the trans- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 105 

lators ? What are their names ? Where do they 
reside ? Of what congregations have they charge ? 
Or in what institutions of learning are they em- 
ployed ? 

Dr. Williams thus refers to this fact : 
^^And in «:ivino; not the names of the transla- 
tors whom you employ, is it regard to truth or 
expediency that dictates this remarkable and 
mysterious reserve ? In the preparation of the 
received version, the names of the learned and 
orthodox men to be employed were published. 
The Jews, in their offerings to the Tabernacle, 
knew as skilful workmen the Bezaleel and Aho- 
liab, who were to form from their gifts the furni- 
ture of the sanctuary. When Solomon called 
from Tyre the highly endowed Hiram to build 
the temple, do we read that he introduced the 
architect to the tribes without a name^ and wear- 
ing a mask ? Why repair the goodly edifice of 
our Scriptures in so covert a manner ? You in- 
form us that contracts have been made with some 
scholars, are about to be made with others, and 
you ask for funds in their aid and support. 



106 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Should we not know the men whom we thus en- 
dorse and sustain? When Paul sent men to 
gather and bear the contributions of the churches, 
he presented them as well-known and trustworthy 
— ^ the messengers of the churches and the glory 
of Christ/ If funds in almsgiving need known 
and approved distributors, do not the funds asked 
for Scripture translation deserve also as much 
publicity and reliability in the case of men who 
are to be by these funds sustained in work for the 
churches ? Have we not a right to know whether 
the men who are to interpret for us God's word^ 
dwell in the tents and speak the dialect of Ash- 
dod, or whether they belong to the tribes and 
speak the language of Zion ? Surely Baptists 
have not been wont to ask this implicit confidence 
fn the anonymous and unknown/^ — (Tract No. 10, 
published by the American Bible Union.) 

And just listen to the answer they give to this, 
in the same tract: ^' Their names may not be 
published at present. Could their publication 
serve any useful or important purpose, without 
subjecting the persons themselves to the relent- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 107 

less persecution with which all who were known 
to take any prominent part in the work of revision 
have been followed, there would be no objection, 
we presume, to such publicity. But they are 
engaged in a great work, and would not like to be 
annoyed by the opponents of revision in a guer- 
illa warfare which has been waged against every 
man's reputation whom mere rumor represented 
as having some connection with the Bible Union.'' 

The fear of persecution is given as the apology 
for this Jesuitical course. What ! men engaged 
in so noble a work as this is claimed to be, and 
not willing to be persecuted for the sake of it ? 

Is not here a piece of the most consummate 
priestcraft that was ever attempted to be prac- 
ticed in a Protestant country? It almost out- 
Jesuits Roman Jesuitism itself. They delibe- 
rately ask for ^'prayer and aid^^ from Baptists 
and others, and, at the same time, with the ut- 
most sang-froid^ refuse to let it be known whom 
they are to pray for, or to aid by their contri- 
butions ! 



108 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 
I 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT, CONTINUED. 

In tlie last two chapters I have exhibited, in 
part, the tactics of the advocates of this move- 
ment, " employed to divert the attention of the 
public from the main design. I have quoted 
from some of their publications a denial, not 
only that the main object is to substitute immerse 
for baptize^ but a denial that such a substitution 
constitutes ^^ any essential or determined part'' in 
the enterprise : that ^^ihe Bible Union have never 
joined issue with their opponents on this point/' 
And, as the reader will recollect, I quoted, from 
the very same documents, passages in which this 
very thing which they so positively deny, is ad- 
mitted — at least, indirectly. I have aimed all 
the time to keep before the mind of the reader 
the main design of the movement, i. e., the put- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 109 

ting of immerse in the JSTew Testament in the 
place of haptize. And I again repeat, that this 
is the main design j unless Drs. Cone and Mo Clay 
have heen totally misled on this subject from the 
beginning of the movement ; or, if they have not 
been misled, they have wilfully sought to mislead 
the public. We have noticed the Jesuitical ex- 
pedient of representing that a large proportion of 
the leaimed men engaged in the work of translat- 
ing hold their ecclesiastical connections with Pedo- 
baptist denominations, thereby endeavoring to 
mislead the public, as we conceive, by making the 
impression that the forthcoming version is not to 
be sectarian. 

We showed that if the American Bible Union 
have not abandoned their original purpose, and 
these Pedobaptist scholars are true to their eccle- 
siastical connections, they are not the men to be 
employed in this work : that, admitting that the 
principles upon which the enterprise was begun 
are retained, these Pedobaptist learned men are 
acting dishonestly. And, therefore, so far from 
the fact of these Pedobaptists being employed in 
10 



110 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

the work of revision being an argument in favor 
of it J it is really one of the strongest arguments 
that can be used against it. In this chapter I will 
notice another expedient to hide the main design 
a little longer. It is this : They have published, 
and are circulating abroad, parts of the revision 
of the New Testament, in which neither the 
word PaTTTC^G), nor any of its derivatives, occurs 
in the original ; and they are exhibiting these as 
proof that the version, when completed, will not 
be sectarian. One portion of the work com- 
mences with the Second Epistle of Peter, and 
embraces the book of Revelation ; the other por- 
tion contains the first and second chapters of 
Matthew. Now, a much more natural arrange- 
ment, as far as the first-named portion is con- 
cerned, would have been to have commenced with 
the Epistle of James, and then what are called 
tlie General Epistles would have been embraced. 
At least, it is very unnatural not to have em- 
braced the First Epistle of Peter. Why was this 
left out in this first specimen of the new version ? 
Why, simply because baptisma occurs in this 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Ill 

epistle in tlie original. And it would not have 
suited the Jesuitism of the movement to let 
the main design appear in so prominent a man- 
ner at this critical period in its history. They 
can now exhibit these fragments of the forth- 
coming version, and say, ^^ See ! here is a part of 
the new version ; and you can examine it your- 
self, and we defy you to detect any thing sectarian 
in it.^' This they have done; and many, with- 
out reflecting, are misled. 

It is said that the first-named portion of the 
work was performed by one of the eminent Pedo- 
baptist scholars employed in the great work. 

This being the fact in the case, this worthy 
gentleman may have had some conscientious scru- 
ples about translating any portion of the New 
Testament involving the main issue. And, to 
suit the arrangement to the case of this worthy 
personage, this part of the work was laid off for 
him. But it admirably suits the purposes of the 
advocates of the movement in the way I have de- 
scribed. Much capital is sought to be made with 
it. The dear '^common peojple/' fyr whose bene- 



112 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

fit the whole movement was professedly set on 
foot, are sought to be humbugged ; so that when 
the whole of the New Testament comes out with 
immerse exalted into the place of baptize, they 
may receive it as the revelation of God. But 
when the history of the movement is understood, 
it requires but little acumen to see quite through 
this trick. 

In this specimen of the new version they could 
not come out on the main issue, simply because 
the word involving it is not in the original. But 
when the whole of the New Testament shall ap- 
pear in the neiv garb, look out ! Im^merse and 
its cognates will be in the place of baptize and its 
cognates. Immerse will then ^^be printed — 
PRINTED IN THE Bible/^ as Dr. Coucsays it ought 
to be. This will be the case, we say, unless the 
leaders in '' the greatest enterprise of the age'' 
should get frightened out of their long-cJierished 
purpose, to have their strange dogma of '' dip^ 
and nothing but dipj'^ m the New Testament. 
This may be the case. For not only are the Pedos 
coming '^ down upon them with tremendous 



^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 113 

power/ ^ but the large majority of their own de- 
nomination, and the large majority of their greatest 
and most learned men, are down on the movement 
like an avalanche, as far as the English Scriptures 
are concerned. It is only a fragment of the Bap- 
tist denomination, and the great body of the 
Campbellites, that are united in the movement. 

They have precedent for backing out. The 
majority of the American and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety, though they had formed the purpose of 
having an immersionist version of the English 
Scriptures, yet, as we have shown, when the ques- 
tion came to be tested in 1850, they backed out 
from it. On this account, and no other, as we 
have shown, the minority seceded, and formed 
the American Bible Union ; and now, possibly, 
the Union may give up the original and main 
purpose after all. We shall see. 

It may be proper to give additional proof that 
the portion of the new version which has appeared, 
furnishes no guaranty that when the whole of it 
appears it will not be sectarian. There have al- 
ready appeared two versions of the New Testa- 
10* 



114 IMMERSION ISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

ment under the auspices of the friends of this 
movement since the Baptists seceded from the 
American Bible Society, whose character very 
clearly indicates what the forthcoming version is 
to be. Large editions of these versions have 
been printed ; and they have been disseminated 
broadcast in the whole country, and are in the 
hands of ^^ the common people,^ ^ for whom they 
were designed. 

In 1838, a version of the New Testament was 
published by the American and Foreign Bible 
Society, bearing on the title-page the following 
imprint : '' New York : Stereotyped hy White 
and Hagar, for the Amei^ican and Foreign Bible 
Society. John Gray, Printer, 1838.^' 

This edition contains no immersion in the text, 
but there accompanies it on a fly-leaf a glossary, 
or dictionary, giving the meaning of seven words 
which the Society were not willing to risk in the 
hands of '' the mass of the unlearned,^* without 
explanation. 

Here follows this learned '-^ fly -leaf ^ glos- 
sary: 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 115 



*' MEANING OF CERTAIN WORDS USED IN THIS VERSION. 



Greek. 


This version. 


Proper meaning. 


Angel OS, 


Angel, 


Messenger. 


Baptisma^ 


Baptism, 


Immersion. 


Baptizoy 


Baptize, 


Immerse. 


Episcopos, 


Bishop, 


Overseer. 


Agape, 


Charity, 


Love. 


Ecclesia, 


Church, 


Congregation. 


FaschOf 


Easter, 


Passover." 



Now, of the explanations given to these seven 
words, except in the case of Charity and Easter^ 
they are perfect nonsense — at least in many in- 
stances. To prove it, let the reader substitute 
these meanings in the following passages : Heb. 
ii. 5, 7, 9, 16 ; xiii. 2 : 1 Cor. vi. 3 : John v. 4 : 
Luke XX. 36 : Acts xxiii. 8 : 1 Tim. iii. 1-3, etc. 

But why are these words arrayed here with 
baptism and baptize ? Why, simply and mainly 
to have an excuse for giving "" the proper mean- 
ing'^ of baptism and baptize. They must pass 
these terms through the ordeal, in order that, 
with the greater show of propriety, they might 
put baptism and baptize on the rack, and torture 



Il6 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

out of them '^ the proper meaning j^ that is, 
^^ dip, and nothing hut dip.^^ 

The other version, published already by the 
friends of the revision movement, is that pre- 
pared by Messrs. Cone and Wyckoif; and proposed 
to the American and Foreign Bible Society " for 
its adoption and circulation/' since the publica- 
tion of the one above named. This version has 
been scattered through the land in thousands of 
copies. The glossary expedient is abandoned in 
this version, and immerse and immersion are 
'Sprinted — printed in the Bible/' as Dr. Cone 
(who was chiefly concerned in preparing it) con- 
tends it ought to be. Here is a step further in 
^^ the greatest enterprise of the age.'' Baptize 
and baptism are turned out of the Bible, and the 
darling idea of ^^ dip, and nothing hut dip,^^ 
which is to open the eyes of the world and make 
them immersionists, is put in its stead. But 
what becomes of the words that accompanied hap- 
tism and haptize in the '' fly -leaf ^^ edition ? Why, 
^^ ^he proper meaning'^ of only three of them (viz., 
Charity, Bishop, and Easter) is given, and An- 



I 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIELE. 117 

gel and Church are left as in our version. Hear 
Dr. A. Newton on this subject^ in the True Bap- 
tist : '' How is this ? The same men, the Pre- 
sident and Secretary of the sSlme Society, first 
give us a New Testament with '' a glossary^ ^ in 
which the reader is warned against the improper 
and false renderings of certain words in the text, 
and ^ the proper meaning' is given to secure him 
from being led astray by these false renderings ; 
and yet, when they come to make a version just 
as they would have it themselves, they do not 
give us ' the proper meaning,^ but still retain that 
which they had thus solemnly pronounced impro- 
per and false. How is this? Was it an over- 
sight ? 

^' But as to haptize and haptism^ they are by 
no means so forgetful. They make sure of these. 
These are uniformly given in their ^proper mean- 
ing.' Amidst ^ several hundred emendations' 
which they say they have made in this edition, 
the angels and the churches are left to stand un- 
disturbed in their old places in the Bible. Bap- 
tism and haptizej however, are rigidly excluded, 



118 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

and nowhere in this version are permitted to have 
place. In their stead, we have immersion^ im- 
merse— modal terms, iinsuited to express the in- 
tent of the original, and directly in conflict with 
the act enjoined in God's word/' 

I quote the following from the manifesto ac- 
companying the issue of this version : ^^ In ad- 
dition to such specific cases of the direct perver- 
sion of the word of God in support of the dogmas 
and usages of the Church of England, it may 
be remarked that obscurity and indefiniteness are 
thrown over the ordinance of baptism, in order 
to shield from the condemnation of holy writ, 
the sprinkling and pouring substituted for tm- 
mersion in the practices of that Church. The 
term haptizo and its cognates, which, if correctly 
translated, would enjoin immersion , are not, when 
referring to the ordinance, translated, but trans- 
ferred from the original Greek with Anglicised 
terminations.^' — Q' Bible Translated,'' in New 
York Chronicle, p. 49.) I will give a 
few specimens from this version, that the 
reader may see what improvement they have 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 119 

made in favor of their peculiar dogma. Here 
they are : 

Matt. iii. 11 : ^^ I indeed immerse you in water 
unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear : he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and 
fire.'' 

John i. 25-28 : ^^And they asked him, Why 
immersest thou then/' etc. *^John answered 
them^ saying, I immerse in water/' etc. '^ These 
things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, 
where John was immersing. And I knew him 
not ; but he that sent me to immerse in water/' 
etc., '' the same is he that immerseth in the Holy 
Spirit." 

Mark vii. 4 : ^- And when they come from 
market, except they immerse, they eat not. And 
many other things there are which they have 
received to hold, as the immersing of cups, and 
pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.'^ 

Luke xi. 38 : '^ When the Pharisee saw it, he 
marvelled that he had not first immersed before 
dinner." 



120 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Mark x. 38, 39 : " Can ye drink of the cup 
that I drink of? and be immersed with the im- 
mersion that I am immersed with? Ye shall 
indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and 
with the immersion that I am immersed with ye 
shall be immersed/^ 

Rom. vi. 3,4: " Know ye not that so many 
of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were 
immersed into his death? Therefore we are 
buried with him by immersion unto death/ ^ etc. 

Acts i. 5 : '^ For John indeed immersed in 
water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy 
Spirit not many days hence. "" 

Acts xi. 15, 16 : ^^And as I began to speak, 
the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the 
beginning. Then remembered I the word of the 
Lord, how he said, John immersed in water, but 
ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.^' 

Now let the reader bear in mind that these 
two versions were published and have been 
circulated by the advocates of the revision move- 
ment. It is true they were published by the 
American and Foreign Bible Society ; but it was 



\ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 121 

previously to their abandoning the idea of a new 
version in English. And note, that they were 
gotten up principally through the influence of 
Messrs. Cone and Wyckoff; who went off at the 
head of the secession in 1850. And the latter 
edition of the above two has been and is being 
diligently circulated by the agents of the Union. 
They have, therefore, fully endorsed it. 

And from these versions, does it not appear 
very clearly what they are after ? These versions 
were put forth and sent abroad as harhingers or 
forerunners of the denominational version. They 
are intended to be the means, in part, of prepar- 
ing the way for it. 

I have quoted from the friends of the move- 
ment, showing what they thought should he the 
version which is sought. In these versions there 
appears what they have actually done, as demon- 
strating what kind of a version they are de- 
termined to make it. 

In the former of these preparatory versions 

they put immerse, etc., in the glossary on the 

''^fly-leafJ^ In the latter they exclude haptize, 
11 



122 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



etc., from the text^ and put immerse, etc., in 
their place. 

They are, therefore, committed to this feature 
in the new version, beyond all possibility of 
getting out of it, unless, indeed, they give np 
the whole enterprise as a magnificent failure. 



1 



I 



I 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 123 



CHAPTER YII. 

DISPARAGEMENT OF THE COMMON VERSION. 

In this chapter I will notice some of the 
char2:es brouo'ht acrainst Kins; James and the 
translators of the common version, and especially 
ao-ainst the version itself. 

These charges are made for the purpose, of 
course, of destroying confidence in the common 
version, so as to make way for their own one- 
sided, sectarian translation. 

I will only present a few of the many charges 
they have made, as an indication of the animus 
of the movement. 

The English Bible is spoken of as "Scriptures 
in the dress and mask an arbitrary monarch of 
Popish extraction, of Presbyterian education, but 
defender of the faith of Episcopacy, chose to give 
them." 



124 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



^ 



" Was made to suit other denominations/' 

That ^^it perpetuates ignorance by concealment, 
and error by misinterpretation, on the point at 
which we are at issue/' (i. e., of course, baptism.) 

Again : ^^ The fact is, instead of performing 
the work to the best of their knowledge and 
skill, they (the translators) were obliged to sub- 
mit themselves, as passive instruments, to the dic- 
tation of a monarch noted for passion, pedantry, 
and self-will/' 

Again : '^ The evils which have accrued from 
the introduction of a single word imposed by 
foreign influence, and the bigotry of an earthly 
prince, no human mind can compute.'' 

Again : " One of the important ordinances of 
the gospel, described by the Holy Spirit as with 
a sunbeam, has been covered up and hid from 
the great mass of the people by the popish artifice 
of transfer,^^ 

'' Under the class of old ecclesiastical words, 
baptize was included, and, therefore, the trans- 
lators did not feel themselves at liberty to translate 
it, but merely gave it an English termination.^' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. jl25 

'^But the Kingj it should seem^ did not wish 
the meanins: of the word to be known : our trans- 
lators acquiesce, and so they wrap it up/' 

^^ Baptists surely will not cleave to the fasci- 
nating Latin Yulgate Baptizare, ' chipped/ as 
Stovel says, ' to suit the Saxon taste, as given by 
the word baptize, craicling like a lizard from a 
])ajpal swamp.^ ^' 

In a discussion of Revision, as reported in the 
New York Chronicle, the Rev. Mr. Grafton said • 
^^ I have heard that a remark was made here last 
night, which, had I been here, I should have 
feared God would have sent a flash of lightning 
to avenge. I heard that his holy word was com- 
pared to a hlindj dumb dog.^^ 

Mr. S. W. Cone : ^^I protest that it was not 
the case.'' 

Rev. Dr. Dowling : ^^ I understood that you 
meant that we ministers had been all our lives 
palming a lame dog for a sTieep.^^ 

Mr. S. W. Cone : " I said that every Baptist 
minister had been attempting, through the whole 
course of his ministry, to prove that baptize 
11* 



126 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

means to immerse; and I said that the word 
baptize was a lame dog.^^ 

Eev. Mr. Kingsford : '^ I feel constrained to 
say that I did not understand the gentleman so.^' 

It will be observed that Mr. Cone does not 
make the case any better after all. 

Let the reader particularly notice the epithets 
applied to the English Bible, to King James, and 
the translators. And these extracts, perhaps, 
do not contain a fair specimen of the abuse they 
have used. They fall, perhaps, much below the 
spirit that has been manifested in this regard in 
some of the publications of the friends of the 
movement, and in addresses before the people. 
In a neighboring village, not long ago, the ablest 
advocate of revision, perhaps, in the West, in an 
address upon the subject, pointed to the common 
version with supreme contempt, and denounced it 
as containing falsehood. 

Another advocate of the movement, in an ad- 
joining county to this, most solemnly declared 
that if he were on his dying-bed, he could not 
call his child to his bedside and put the common 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 127 

version in his hand and tell him that it would 
safely guide him to heaven. What effect must 
such attacks upon the word of God have^ made 
by men professing godliness !* 

^ In the appeal of Messrs. Cone and Wyckoff, pub- 
lished in the New York Chronicle for 1850, pp. 55-75, 
the following language is used: "We hesitate not to 
say, that if any other book of the size, disfigured by 
half the number of faults of a similar description, 
were proposed as a reading-book in any district school 
in this State, (New York,) to form the taste of youth in 
the use of correct English, it would be rejected by the 
school committee with disdain." 

Says Dr. Williams, in his letter to the Amity Street 
Church, as contained in a pamphlet entitled, ''The 
Common English Version," — "Against the received ver- 
sion in its present state have been alleged, in language 
of great directness and ruggedness, faults in grammar 
and stjde that would banish any other book from our 
common schools ; and errors in translation, ' obvious 
errors,' that endanger 'every schoolboy,' 'as he becomes 
familiar with the Greek Testament;' so that ^no care on 
ike part of a teacher can prevent a germ of infideUty from 
taking root in his breast^ when he sees that Christians, 
while professing the most ardent love for the truth, 
prefer to circulate the most palpable falsehoods under the 
name of God's revealed word, rather than correct them 
when in their power.' 



128 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

One thing, however, is very clear from the 
above quotations ; and that is, that if immerse 
had been put in the place of haptize, King James 
and the translators would not have been regarded 
as so great sinners. That they did not do this, 
is the burden of the complaint. If ''dip, and 
nothing hut dip^^ had been where they think it 
ought to be, they would be content. Thus, Mr. 
Cushman, as already quoted : '' It (the English 
Bible) is not sufficiently defective, except in re- 
gard to baptism and Church order, to be dis- 

'^The authors of the version are impeached as having 
used needlessly and unwarrantably ^a most irreverent 
oath ;^ and as having 'put it into the apostle's mouth;' 
of having, with express design, clouded the sense of 
Scripture, Hn order the more effectually to obscure the per- 
ceptions of an ordinary reader in regard to the true nature 
of the ordinance,' (baptism,) and to force upon the mind 
*a certain erroneous conviction, almost uniformly mis- 
translated a certain preposition;' and, finally, with 
having used, and that often, to describe the third person 
in the adorable Trinity, 'a term of absurdity and im- 
propriety,' and even ^manifest blasphemy.'' '^ 

In reading such abuse as the above, one almost ima- 
gines himself reading some of the lowest and most pro- 
fane of Voltaire and Paine' s attacks on the Bible. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 129 

trusted as a guide to truth and duty/^ The 
impression is sought to be made, as in the above 
extracts, that King James originated the idea of 
the common version ; that it was secured by his 
influence as the sovereign of Great Britain ; and 
that its adoption by the people of his realm was 
the result of the enforcement of the royal autho- 
rity. No account of the whole matter could be 
farther from the truth, as I will show from the 
most unquestionable authority. 

I have before me ^^Annals of the English 
Bible, by Christopher Anderson, of Edinburgh, 
abridged and continued by S. I. Prime. '^ Mr. 
Anderson, I learn, is a member of the Baptist 
Church in Scotland, a gentleman evidently of 
learning, and who gives evidence in this work of 
very laborious and diligent research. His work 
is a standard, so far as the history of the English 
Scriptures is concerned, and his testimony ought 
not to be objected to by the advocates of the new 
version movement, as he is a Baptist of very high 
standing. 

The main object of Mr. Anderson in this work 



130 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

is to show tliat^ from Wjcliffe^s translation of the 
Holy Scriptures from the Latin Yulgate, and 
Tyndale's version from the Hebrew and Greek, 
into our language, to the present time, the work 
has been carried forward, not only loitliout the aid 
or countenance of ecclesiastical or civil authority 
or power, but in despite of hoth. And no one 
can fail to see, who reads the work, that he has 
fully made out what he proposes. 

And what does Mr. Anderson say in regard to 
'the part which King James had in the common 
version ? I quote from Book III., section iv., 
pp. 400-403. 

^^Up to the present moment, (A. D. 1604,) the 
history of the English Bible had maintained a 
character peculiar to itself. Originating with no 
mere patron, whether royal or noble, the under- 
taking had never yet been promoted at the per- 
sonal expense of any such party. But now, in 
regard to that version of the sacred volume, 
which for two hundred and thirty years has been 
read with delight, from generation to generation, 
and proved the effectual means of knowledge, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 131 

holiness, and joy to millions, it may be imagined 
by some, as there was another and a final change, 
that our history must at last change, or, in other 
words, forfeit its character. If, however, the 
accounts frequently given of our present version 
have been involved in as much inaccuracy of 
statement as they have been with regard to all 
the preceding changes, there is the greater ne- 
cessity for the public mind being disabused ; and 
that, too, whether in Britain or America, or the 
British foreign dependencies. This is a subject 
which alike concerns them all, as they all read 
and prize the same version. 

'^ If because that a dedication to James the 
First of England has been prefixed to many 
copies, though not to many others; and if be- 
cause not only historians, at their desks, but 
lawyers at the bar, and even judges on the bench, 
have made most singular mistakes, it has there- 
fore been imagined by any, or many, that the 
present version of our Bible was either suggested 
by this monarch, or that he was at any personal 



132 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

expense in the undertaking; or tliat lie ever 
issued a single line of authority, by way of pro- 
clamation, with respect to it; it is more than 
time that the delusion should come to an end. 
The original and authentic documents of the time 
are so far explicit, that just in proportion as they 
are sifted, and the actual circumstances placed in 
view, precisely the same independence of royal 
bounty, and, on the part of the people at large, 
the same superiority to all royal dictation, which 
we have beheld all along, will become apparent. 
James himself, however vain, is certainly not so 
much to be blamed for any different impression, 
as some others who have misrepresented his 
Majesty. On the other hand, his character was 
such, that to many writers it has occasioned some 
exercise of patience even to refer to it. But 
since his name occurs in connection with this final 
revision of the English Bible, it is of the more 
importance to ascertain the exact amount of this 
connection. From the moment in which he was 
invited to the throne, and to be king of Great 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 133 

Britain, his own favorite term, down to the year 
in which our present version was published, his 
^ royal progress' is forced upon our notice. 

^^ Elizabeth had expired on the 24th of March, 
1603, when the King of Scotland succeeded as 
James the First, finally assuming the style of 
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. 
Having left Edinburgh for England, on Tuesday 
the 5th of April, James proceeded, by the way 
of Berwick and Newcastle, through York to Lon- 
dtm, where he did not arrive till the 7th of May. 
Throughout this journey he had already furnished 
a strong contrast, in point of character, to his 
predecessor. With regard to rewards, whether 
in point of honor or emolument, Elizabeth had 
been so sparing that she had been charged with 
avarice. But James having once procured from 
London such supplies as might enable him to ad- 
vance in befitting style, actually hunted most of 
the way, scattering the honors of knighthood with 
such profusion along the road, that by the day 
he entered his capital the number of his knights 

was about one hundred and fifty; and before 
12 



134 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

one fortniglit had passed, or by the 20tli of May, 
^they were accounted at two hundred and thirty- 
seven, or better, since the time he entered Ber- 
wick,^ on the 6th of April. The queen, with her 
children, having followed in June, the coronation 
took place in July; after which, his Majesty 
immediately returned, with great ardor, to his 
favorite sport of hunting. Though now entered 
into his thirty-ninth year, and having affairs to 
manage which had demanded all the talents of 
an Elizabeth, never was a boy let loose from 
school more bent upon his amusement. 

'' Of the learning or talent to be found in Eng- 
land, where he had done little else than follow 
the hounds and the hares, James as yet could 
know next to nothing. Of Oxford and Cam- 
bridge he was equally ignorant. He had not 
called any circle of learned men around him, nor, 
indeed, ever did. Such also was the state of his 
finances, when necessity forced him to call a par- 
liament. ^It was,^ says Sir James Mcintosh, 
' his last resource. He had exhausted his credit 
with the money- dealers; both in London and Hoi- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 135 

land, to supply his prodigalities, before lie issued 
his proclamation for the meeting of parliament, 
on the 19th of March/ 

"It was in the midst of his sport at Wilton, 
and his preparations for the arraignment of Sir 
Walter Raleigh, that James issued a proclama- 
tion, dated the 24th day of October, ' Touching a 
meeting for the hearing and for the determining 
things pretended to be amiss in the Church/ 
This meeting, known ever since as ' the Conference 
at Hampton Courts was held in the drawing- 
room there, on Saturday, Monday, and Wednes- 
day, the 14th, 16th, and 18th of January, 1604. 

" The Conference, it will be understood, was not 
with any official hody of men whatever; and it 
should also be remembered, that however exalted 
were the ideas of James himself, as to his pre- 
rogatives, or of his right and title to the throne, 
strictly speaking, or according to law, he was not 
yet hing of England ; nor could he be till the 
assembling of Parliament. That was the point 
to which, as we have seen. Lord Cecil was look- 
ing forward. This was a conference, therefore, 



136 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

of the king by courtesy, for the time being, with 
only nine bishops, eight deans, an archdeacon, 
two professors of divinity from Oxford, two from 
Cambridge, to which one native of Scotland, Mr. 
Patrick Galloway, formerly of Perth, was also 
admitted. Nor were even all these parties present 
on any one day. 

^' The 16th of January was the time appointed 
for hearing of things ^ pretended to be amiss/ 
as the proclamation had phrased it ; and it was 
among them that the necessity for another revi- 
sion or translation of the Bible was first men- 
tioned. 

^^Dr. John Rainolds, a man of high and un- 
blemished character, then in his 55th year, was 
at that time nearly, if not altogether, the most 
eminent individual for learning and erudition in 
the kingdom. He was now the President of Cor- 
pus Christi College, and the chief speaker on this 
occasion 

^^As presented by Rainolds was the following : 
^ That a translation be made of the whole Bible, 
as co7isonant as can he to the original Hebrew 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 137 

a7id Greek J and this to be set out and printed, 
without any marginal notes, and only to be used 
in all churches of England in time of Divine 
service/ Now by this version of the story the 
exclusion of all marginal notes originated with 
Rainolds; as well as the proposal of a new trans- 
lation. 

^' The first Parliament held by the King assem- 
bled on the 19th of March, 1604, and the Convo- 
cation on the following day. The Primate, Whit- 
gift, having expired on the 29th of February, 
Bancroft, the Bishop of London, was appointed 
to preside. James had commenced these proceed- 
ings with a speech longer than many a sermon; 
but at last, not being in the best humor with his 
English Parliament, he dissolved it on the 7th of 
July, and the Convocation rose. 

^^Among all the business of either house, not 
one word was spoken then respecting the Scrip- 
tures ; nor do we hear of any movement in con- 
sequence of what had passed at Hampton Court, 
till the end of June. Some time had been re- 
quired for the selection of suitable scholars, and 
12* 



138 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

before the end of that month a list was presented 
to James for his acceptance. They had been se- 
lected for him, and he of course approved/' 

Now, in the light of the above, what becomes 
of the allegation that the common version was 
secured at the instance of James to subserve his 
purposes as an individual and a sovereign ? For 
it appears, 1, that at the time of the session of the 
Hampton Court Conference, James was not, ac- 
cording to law. King of England at ally nor was 
he till more than two months afterwards. Conse- 
quently, the Conference itself was vested with no 
civil or ecclesiastical authority. It was composed 
of '' no official body of men whatever.^' The King 
was present, and presided by courtesy, and not 
officially. It appears, 2, that the King was not 
the mover of the proposition to have a new ver- 
sion. Dr. Hainolds made the motion. He only 
consented or approved of the measure. It appears, 
3, that the King did not even select the trans- 
lators. They were selected by another, and he 
only accepted the selection. We learn, 4, that 
James did not even contribute one cent toward 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 139 

defraying the expenses of the translation, nor of 
its publication, as we learn from the following ex- 
tract of a letter sent from the King to all the 
bishops, by Bancroft, acting as the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. This is found on page 404 of the 
work above named : 

^^Right-trusty and well-beloved brother, we 
greet you well. Whereas we have appointed cer- 
tain learned men to the number of four-and-fifty, 
for the translating of the Bible, and that in this 
number diverse of them either have no ecclesi- 
astical preferment at all, or else so very small as 
the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts, 
and yet, we of OURSELF in any convenient time 
cannot well remedy it : Therefore, we do hereby 
require you, that presently you write, in our name, 
as well to the Bishop of York, as to the rest of 
the bishops of the province of Canterhury, sig- 
nifying unto them that we do will, and straitly 
charge every one of them, as also the other bishops 
of the province of York, as they tender our good 
favor toward them, that (all excuses set apart) 
when any prebend or parsonage, being rated in 



140 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

our book of taxations^ the prebend to twenty 
pounds at least^ and the parsonage to the like sum 
and upwards, shall next upon any occasion hap- 
pen to be void, and to be either of their patron- 
age, or of the patronage and gift of any person 
wliatevevy they do make stay thereof, and admit 
none unto it, until certifying us of the avoidance 
of it, and of the name of the patron, if it be not 
of their own gift, that we may commend for the 
same some such of the learned men as we shall 
think fit to be preferred unto it; not doubting of 
the bishops' readiness to satisfy us herein, or that 
any of the laity, when we shall in time move them 
to so good and religious an act, will be unwilling 
to give us the like due contentment and satisfac- 
tion ) we ourselves having taken the same order 
for such prebends and benefices as shall be void 
in our gift/ 

Mr. Anderson says, p. 410, ^^ The first revision 
of the sacred text by the forty-seven occupied 
about four years ; the second examination by 
twelve, or two selected out of each company, nine 
months more, and the sheets passing through the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 141 

press other two j^ears, when the Bible of 1611 
was finished, and first issued/' 

We have seen how the first revision was paid 
for. Let us see how the second^ or that by the 
twelve, was paid for. The historian will tell us 
on the same page how it was likely done : 
" Twelve men paid at the rate of thirty shillings 
each was equal to £18 weekly, and for the thirty- 
nine weeks £702 must have been expended, which 
expense was probably borne by Barker, who had 
the^a^en^ for printing the Bible. 

^^The honor of payment for the whole concern^ 
so often ascribed to James the First, is by no 
means to be taken from him, if one shred of 
positive evidence can be produced ; but this, it is 
presumed, lies beyond the possibility of research. 
In this case, therefore, to speak correctly, we have 
come at last, not to an afikir of government, not 
to a royal undertaking at his Majesty^ s expense, 
according to the popular and very erroneous his- 
torical fiction, hut simply to a transaction in the 
course of business. If we inquire for any single 
royal grant, or look for any act of personal gene- 



142 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

rosity^ we searcli in vain/' — We learn by an 
additional extract from this work, (pp. 410, 411,) 
that it was not by the authority of King James, 
or any power civil or ecclesiastical, that the com- 
mon version came to be received as the standard 
version in England, Scotland, and Ireland. '' There 
is one other inquiry to be made, and this, to some 
minds, may be not the least important. It is this : 
By whose influence or autliority was it, that our 
version of the sacred volume came to be read, not 
in England alone, but in Scotland and Ireland ? 
This, too, is a question the more interesting to 
millions, as it is now the Bible of so many distant 
climes — read not only in America and Canada, 
but in all the widespread and daily extending 
British colonies. The reigning king had indeed 
signified his approbation of the undertaking, and 
when the Bible was published it bore on its title- 
page that the version had been ^ newly trans- 
lated out of the original tongues, and with the 
former translations diligently compared and re- 
vised, by his Majesty's special commandment.' 
In a separate line below, and by itself, we have 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 143 

these words : ^Appointed to be read in churches/ 
Now, as the book never was submitted to Parlia- 
ment, never to any Convocation, nor, as far as is 
known, ever to the Privy Council, James, by 
this title-page, was simply following or made to 
follow in the train of certain previous editions. 
As for Elizabeth, his immediate predecessor, we 
have already seen that under her long reign there 
was another revision besides the bishops', and 
that the former enjoyed the decided preference 
in public favor: so, in the present instance, that 
there might be no mistake or misapprehension 
in regard to the influence of authority by which 
our present Bible came to be universally re- 
ceived, a result somewhat similar took place. 

^^ Thus, for seven or eight years after the present 
version was published, we find Barker, or Norton 
and Bill, still printing the Geneva Bible, in ten 
editions, besides four of the New Testament 
separately. The fact is, that the royal patentee 
went on to print both versions to the year 1617, 
or 1618. After that the Geneva Bibles, so fre- 
quently printed in Holland, were imported and 



144 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

sold^ without the shadow of inhibition, during the 
entire reign of James the First, and longer still. 
As for Scotland, from whence the king had come, 
that Bible continued to be as much used there as 
the present version, for more than twenty years 
after James was in his grave. The influence or 
authority of James, therefore, cannot once be 
mentioned when accounting for the final result. 

^^The Bible was, indeed, first published in 1611, 
and was still further corrected in 1613 ; but did 
James, as a king, take one step to enforce its 
perusal ? Not one : a fact so much the more 
notable when the overweening conceit of that 
monarch, and the high terms in which he so 
frequently expressed himself as to his preroga- 
tive, are remembered. 

^^^We can assign,' says one of the best living 
authorities in the kingdom, ^we can assign no 
authority for using the present version of the 
Bible, except that of the Conference at Hampton 
Court.' But that Conference has been already 
described ; and in the circumstances, it actually 
amounted to no authority at all in point of a law. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 145 

James was not then King of England : though 
had it been otherwise^ that Conference certainly 
had not the slightest influence in recommending 
the version to which it gave rise. However, 
immediately after his Majesty had been recog- 
nized by the Parliament, he had spoken once, as 
we have heard ; and his solitary letter we have 
given at length. It was, in part, abortive; and 
after that, it seems, he must speak no more ; a 
circumstance the more worthy of notice, as 
James was notoriously so fond of speaking offi- 
cially, and especially by proclamations. In the 
first nine months of his reign he had issued at 
least a round dozen ; but here there was nothing 
of the kind. ^iVfter this translation was pub- 
lished,' says one writer, ^the others all dropped 
off by degrees,^ that is, in about forty years, 
^ and this took the place of all, though I do not 
find that there was any canoriy proclamation, or 
act of Parliament to enforce the use of it.' '' 

This shows the utter baselessness of the 
assumption, upon the part of advocates of the 

revision movement of our day, as to the part 
13 



146 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

which was taken by King James in the procure- 
ment and circulation of the common version. 
Ignorance of the history of facts, or blindness 
caused by an overheated zeal to sustain the 
interests of a party reckless of the testimony of 
history, can alone account for the representations 
and charges which have been made in the pre- 
mises. I quote the following from the address 
of Mr. A. Campbell to the Bible Convention at 
Memphis, April, 1852, as fully agreeing with the 
facts above quoted : 

'^ But it [the English Bible] originated not 
with and proceeded not from them [King James 
and his party]. It was individual piety, learn- 
ing , zeal, enterprise, that gave to us our present 
English Bible.'' 

But admitting that King James exercised royal 
authority in procuring the version in common 
use, (and we have proved that he did not,) what 
ground is there for the charge that he left the 
translators no discretion in the work of translat- 
ing; that, instead of leaving them to do the 
work to the best of their knowledge and skilly 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 147 

they '^ were obliged to yield themselves as passive 
instruments to the dictates of a monarch ?'^ etc. 

This^ certainly, is a grave charge; and there 
ought to have been most satisfactory proof of the 
justness of it before it was made. But I think 
I will make it appear to every candid mind that 
it is an utterly gratuitous and reckless slander. 

It is very evident, if King James did exercise 
the arbitrary power ascribed to him, it will 
appear in the rules laid down for the direction of 
the translators. If it does not appear in these, 
it is evident that its source is in the imaginations 
of revisionists. 

I will quote, as relating to this subject, the 
1st, 3d, and 14th rules : 

1st. ^^ The ordinary Bible read in the Church, 
commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be fol- 
lowed, and as little altered as the original will 
pennit.^' 

3d. ^' The old ecclesiastical words to be kept ; 
as the word Church, not to be translated Con- 
gregation, etc.'' 

14th. ^^ These translations to be used when 



148 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

they agree better witli the text than the Bishops' 
Bible^ viz. : 1. Tyndale's; 2. Matthew's; 3. Cover- 
dale's; 4. Whitchurch's; (^. e.y Cranmer's;) 5. The 
Geneva." 

Now, what '' dictation^ ^ is here to be objected 
to ? The Bishops' Bible is to be followed, and as 
little altered ''as the original will permit.^^ 
(Rule 1st.) Therefore, the original is the ulti- 
mate standard recognized. And the translators 
are left to their free and unrestrained judgment 
in determining its meaning. Was not this dis- 
cretion enough ? Was this fettering the transla- 
tors ? In addition (Rule l^th) they are left 
free to follow any or all of five other versions, 
when they agree better with the text {i. e. the 
original) than the Bishops' Bible. The trans- 
lators, then, are allowed to make the original 
Hebrew and Greek their standard : whatever 
respect they were to pay to the Bishops' Bible, 
or any other version, they were required, as a sine 
qua nony to conform to the import of the origi- 
nal. This was the ultimate and final standard. 
The only dictation which appears is, that the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 149 

original was made the standard of authority in 
translating. Is this objectionable? 

The chief stress, however, is laid upon the 
third rule. It is charged that under this rule he 
meant to prohibit the translation of haptizo, and 
some other words, in order to make it '' suit other 
denominations,'^ especially the Episcopalians : that 
under the restraint of this rule ^^ ignorance is 
perpetuated by concealment, and error by mis- 
interpretation -y that haptize '^ was imposed by 
foreign influence and the bigotry of an earthly 
prince '^ that '^ one of the ordinances of the 
gospel has been covered up by tlie popish artifice 
of transfer :^^ that ^^ the king did not wish the 
meaning of the word to appear; the translators 
acquiesce, and so ' they wrap it up f '^ haptize 
being ^^ included in the class of old ecclesiastical 
words, the translators did not feel themselves at 
liberty to translate it, but gave it an English 
termination.^^ 

Now, how do these slanderers know that the 

translators did not feel themselves at liberty to 

translate hautizoj and on this account did not put 
13*^ 



150 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

immerse^ or a word of such import^ iu the pk\ce 
of it? 

But k^t us see if there is any ground for the 
charge that the third rule restrained and fettered 
the traushitors in regard to haptizo, 

1. We most solemnly deny that the third rule 
prohibits the translation from the original of hap- 
tizoy or any other word. It only requires that 
the old ecclesiastical words be retained^ or ''heptJ^ 
The word '' Church'' is the only example given 
to illustrate the meaning of the rule. But there 
IS no prohibition of the translation of that. That 
is itself a translation of the original word, ecclesia. 
The original word was not forbidden to be trans- 
lated. The only thing prohibited is that '' con- 
(jregation'' should be translated from the original, 
instead of "Churcli.^^ That is all. There is, 
therefore, no prohibition of translation from the 
original in this rule at all. And it is only by a 
most astonishing perversion of its meaning that 
such a construction can be given to it. 

2. But we will suppose, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that the rule does prohibit the translation 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 151 

of ^^old ecclesiastical words^^ from the original; 
yet how is it made out that baptize is one of 
these, and, therefore, was retained by virtue of 
the authority of the rule ? Ba-ptizc is not once 
named in the rule ; and yet revisionists speak as 
confidently upon this subject as if the word were 
positively named in the rule. It is not there. 
They ''foist it in.'' They pervert the meaning 
of the rule, and then apply it to this word. 
They say, ^^The king did not wish the meaning 
of the word to appear.'' How do they find this 
out? Not in the rules. They invent this 
assumption to serve ^Hhe greatest enterprise of 
the age.^' '' The translators acquiesce, and so 
they wrap it up.'' Where is the authority for 
this dark slander / Not in the rules. The pur- 
pose is settled to turn baptize out of the Bible ; 
and the point is, to secure something as an apology 
for it, and they can imagine facts when they dc 
not exist. 

But, 3. A proof that the translators did not 
understand the third mlc as prohibiting the 
translation of ha/ptizo and its cognates, is found 



152 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

in tlie fact that they did trandate oaptizo. 
What^ then, becomes of the construction given 
to the third rule^ and of the charge, that the 
translators were mere "passive instruments^' in 
a plan '' to wrap up'' God's holy word ? 

In Mark vii. 4, two of the derivatives of hap- 
tizo are found, viz., PanTtocovrat, haptisontai, 
and PaTTTLOfj^ovg, haptismous. In our translation 
the former is rendered "washy' and the latter 
"washing." 

In Heb. ix. 10, (^airnoiiolg, haptismois, is 
found. It is rendered by " washings." 

Now, if the translators were the sycophantic, 
unprincipled men they are represented as having 
been, and King James exercised the despotic 
dictation over them he is said to have done, how 
are we to account for the fact that the translators 
did, in three instances at least, translate haptizo 
by a word familiar to " the common people 1" 
This cannot be answered on the ground assumed, 
that the third rule was understood as prohibiting 
the translation of haptizo, but as requiring its 
transfer. In these instances we find the transla^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 153 

tors flying in the face of the king's authority; 
and^ strange to say, we hear of no complaint 
upon his part, or from any other source. 

But, finally, I assume that the translators of 
the common version, in rendering haptizo by hap- 
tizej did really translate a Greek word by an 
English word. At the time our translation was 
made, haptize was as really an English word as 
it is now. It is true it was taken from the 
Greek language; but it had been a part 'and 
parcel of the English vocabulary for centuries. 
There was no such thing, then, as tranfer in the 
use of this word at the time our translation was 
made. Can the advocates of this movement be 
ignorant of the fact that words from foreign lan- 
guages make up a large proportion of the English 
vocabulary, and that they are just as really entitled 
to be regarded English words as any other ? To 
show that my position in regard to the history of 
haptize as an English word is correct, I will quote 
from eminent Baptist ministers, of learning and 
talents. 

Dr. John Dowling, in a tract containing ten 



154 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

reasons for Lis opposition to tlie new version 
movement^ gives as the fourth: '^Because the 
word baptize is itself, to all intents and pur- 
poses, an English wordP 

The Eev. Dr. Ide says : '^ I suppose that &ap- 
tize is the only English word by which you can 
translate haptizo.^^ 

'^ It is eight hundred years older, as a native 
English citizen, than immerse.'^ 

The Eev. Dr. Williams says : ^^ On the score 
of age, the word baptize is probably some six 
centuries older, as an English word, than the 
term immerse, proposed to replace it. Its rights 
in the English language are older than Magna 
Charta — older than the Norman conquest — coeval 
with the very birth of the language properly 
so called. And yet it is proposed by some to 
repudiate and reject it as an alien in our dialect.''^ 

'^ Now, where and what are the mighty objet5- 
tions to these rules, [King James's rules to the 
translators,] which could be suggested to an intel- 
ligent and impartial reader? Where are the 
manacles and fetters^ the arbitrary dictation, and 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 155 

the odious despotism ? Where are the masking ^ 
mutilation, conceahnent, and disguise, and wrap- 
ping up in ohscurity? Where is the evidence 
of ^ unlawful interference/ ^ infringing the liberty 
of conscience, and laying violent hands on the 
truth itself?' Where is the proof that the trans- 
lators were compelled, by royal mandate, to adopt 
the popish artifice of transfer, and that ^that 
word which he (Christ) used in the great com- 
mission to denote his own initiatory ordinance, 
was, by order of King James, transferred into our 
English Bibles?' Where is the evidence that 
the translators, ^ instead of performing the work 
to the best of their knowledge and skill, were 
obliged to submit themselves as passive instru- 
ments to the dictation of a monarch noted for 
passion, pedantry, and self-will V 

'^ There is no evidence of any such thing. The 
charges are false, whether made through ^ ignor- 
ance or dishonesty/ I fearlessly avow my con- 
viction of the wisdom, judiciousness, and general 
liberality of these rules.'' — (True Baptist, by Dr. 
A. Newton.) 



156 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

" With the views whicli the advocates of this 
measure entertain of the moral character of the 
translators of our version, I cannot see how they 
can have any confidence in any part of it. To be 
consistent, they should throw it aside as an un- 
holy tiling. If, as they say, ^ the king did not 
wish the meaning of haptizo to appear;' that 
the translators acquiesce, and so ' they wrap it 
up,' what must be the inevitable effect of such 
an imputation upon those who have the slightest 
suspicion of the possibility of its truth ? There 
never was a mind formed, which, having taken 
this step, could avoid at once, and certainly, taking 
the next, and utterly surrendering all confidence 
in any portion of the translation. All philosophy 
teaches, universal observation proves, and our 
Saviour himself declares : ^ He that is faithful 
in that which is least, is faithful also in much ; 
and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in 
much.' If the king did not wish the meaning of 
one word to be known, and the translators ac- 
quiesced, and they wrapped it up in obscurity, in 
order to conceal its true meaning from the people, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 157 

no man who is not himself of a base and corrupt 
heart can have the least degree of respect for 
them, or for any part of their work, from the be- 
o-innino- of Genesis to the end of Revelation. If 
I believed the tenth part of the imputations here 
made by Hhe only people' against the forty-seven 
translators, I should scorn to have their work on 
my table. 

'' The charge against them is infinitely worse 
than the charge of theft, p^jury, piracy, or 
murder. With such men I would scorn to shake 
hands in open daylight. I should fear to meet 
such men in the darkness. If I believed they 
had so little conscience as to conceal any one 
word in their translation, I should, if it were the 
last act of my life, consign to the flames every 
leaf of the Bibles about my house, and leave it 
solemnly in charge to my children to avoid them 
as they would the viper's poisonous fang. 

^^Do ^the only people' believe these charges 

which they make themselves ? I am amazed at 

their patience and forbearance. I marvel that, 

standing up before the world as the ministers of 
14 



158 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

heaven to their dying fellow-men^ and professing 
to proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christy and 
the way of truth and holiness^ as the way to hap- 
piness and heaven, they can pollute their clean 
hands by the touch of this foul, filthy thing, 
'crawling like a lizard from a papal swamp. ^ 
How can they excuse themselves for having held 
up this volume before their congregations for a 
hundred years, as a light to their feet, and a lamp 
to their pathway, from this dark world of sin, of 
sorrow, and of death, to the bright world of light, 
life, and glory on high ? Were they not afraid 
of the fearful plagues written in this book ? If 
the translators slavishly submitted to the manacles 
and fetters of an arbitrary despot, and, recreant 
to their high and infinite obligations to God and 
his truth, sold their consciences for a mess of 
pottage, doled out to them by a wicked king ; or, 
in base cowardice, and with corrupt purpose, ab- 
stracted a single scruple from God's perfect word, 
or added a pennyweight to its sacred teachings, 
they deserve the united and endless execrations of 
all mankind/^ — Ibid, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 159 



CH APTE R VIII. 

THE IMMERSIONISTS HAVE DONE AND ARE DO- 
ING WHAT THEY CHARGE KING JAMES WITH 
DOING. 

In the previous chapter, I think it has been 
satisfactorily shown that the charges against King 
James and the translators are utterly groundless : 
that the translators were left to as wide a discre- 
tion as could with reason be desired ; that the 
only absolute restriction laid upon them, as re- 
gards translation, was, that they should give the 
sense of the original Hebrew and Greek. And 
certainly this cannot be objected to. 

In this chapter I think I will make it appear 
to every candid reader that the sin which the 
advocates of this movement are charging upon 
King James, they are guilty of themselves. And 
it is in accordance with general observation that 



160 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

those who are so reckless in their charges of 
wrong-doing on others^ are likely to be guilty of 
the same sin, or something worse. Paul has 
reference to this when he says, in ^Hhe old- 
fashioned Bible/' " Therefore thou art inexcus- 
able, man, whosoever thou art, that judgest; 
for wherein thou judgest another thou condemn- 
est thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same 
things. '^ 

That the American and Foreign Bible Society, 
the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain, 
and the American Bible Union, have in view, as a 
sine qua non in the versions they are aiming to 
secure and circulate, that they shall contain words 
signifying immerse in the place of haptizej is fully 
established by the history of the movement, as 
already presented. 

Why did the Asiatic and European Baptists 
withdraw from the Calcutta and British and 
Foreign Bible Societies ? Why, simply because 
these Societies would not consent to give money, 
contributed mainly by Pedobaptists, to aid in the 
publication of immersionist versions of the Holy 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 161 

Scriptures. And when they had seceded for the 
sake of this principle, is it likely they would 
abandon it afterwards ? Nay, verily ! And ac- 
cordingly, as has been already shown, when the 
Bible Translation Society of Great Britain was 
organized, the second article of their constitution 
set forth the fact that they would patronize none 
but immersionist versions of the Holy Scriptures. 
There can be no doubt, then, as to the position of 
the English Baptists. They leave their trans- 
lators no alternative in the translation of the 
words relating to the ordinance of haptism. They 
put the '' manacles^^ on in good earnest. If they 
should patronize any other kind of versions, they 
would violate their constitution. And will they 
do this ? 

Why did the Baptists and other immersionists 
secede from the American Bible Society in 1835 ? 
Simply, as the reader will remember, because that 
Society would not appropriate its funds, in viola- 
tion of the great principle on which the Society 
was organized, to sustain immersionist versions 

of the Holy Scriptures. 
14^^ 



162 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Would they have seceded from the Society had 
it not been for their devotion to immersion f Do 
they complain of any thing else but that the Ame- 
rican Bible Society would not permit haptizo to 
be translated ? Would it not now be very strange 
and inconsistent for them^ in view of these facts, 
to think of any thing short of immersionist ver- 
sions ? 

Dr. Cone, who was for many years President 
of the American and Foreign Bible Society, and 
also President of the American Bible Union from 
its organization to the time of his death, declares 
that the American and Foreign Bible Society 
was organized ^Ho vindicate a principle f^ that, 
"• in accordance with this principle^ haptizo and 
its cognates should be translated by words signify- 
ing immerse,^^ etc. 

If this be true, (and no one can doubt that Dr. 
Cone knew for what purpose the Society was or- 
ganized,) how can this Society be satisfied with 
any thing short of versions made upon this prin- 
ciple ? And we have the very highest authority 
to prove that they are carrying out this principle 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 163 

in their translations into foreign tongues. What 
was the character of Judson's version into the 
Burmese tongue, and of Pearse and Yates's into 
the Bengalee, and also of the version into the 
Siamese, from which we have given quotations in 
this work? What is the character of the Italian 
and Spanish versions, specimens of which are 
published by the American Bible Union ? Why, 
they are all immersionist versions. Dr. Cone, 
in a speech before the American Bible Union, in 
1850, complaining of the American and Foreign 
Bible Society for deciding to be content with the 
common version in English, thus speaks : '^ Hav- 
ing directed their missionaries among the heathen 
to translate haptizo and its cognates by words sig- 
nifying immerse, im^mersionj etc., they cannot 
long continue to be so inconsistent as to despise 
or reject immersion in their own vernacular 
tongue. ^^ 

Dr. Cone says again: ^^ Either fear that Hhe 
Pedobaptists will come down upon us with tre- 
mendous power,' as a distinguished brother said, 
or shame, or some other motive of which I know 



164 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. | 

nothing, deters many from bearing in English 
the same testimony for Christ's despised ordinance 
of immersion which tliey have made it the im- 
perative duty of their missionaries to bear in all 
the languages of the heathen/' 

Here it is declared by one as well posted up on 
this subject as any man on earth, that the Ameri- 
can and Foreign Bible Society ^^have directed 
their missionaries in foreign countries/' and 
'^ made it their imperative duty, to translate bap- 
Tizo and its cognates by words signifying im- 
mersej iminersion/^ etc. 

And the American Bible Union must have in- 
structed their missionaries to the same effect. For 
I see in specimens of the translations into the 
Siamese, the Italian, and the Spanish languages 
immerse is translated for haptizo. Could '' a 
wicked monarch^^ have done more than this? 
They have not merely required that the translat- 
ors should be true to the original, as King James 
did, but they have anticipated their independent 
and unrestrained decision, and have '' manacled^^ 
and '^ fettered'' them, to use their own classical 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 165 

pliraseology, so that they are constrained to put 
words for haptUo which signify immerse. 

And from the specimens referred to above, it 
seems that '' instead of performing the work ac- 
cording to the best of their knowledge and skill/' 
they have been^^ obliged to submit themselves as 
passive instruments in the hands/' not of a mon- 
arch but of associations ^^ noted for passion, pe- 
dantry, and self-will/' and also for bigotry and 
exclusiveness, and the most unmitigated slander 
of good men and their work, in order to carry 
their point. 

On account of the instructions those trans- 
lators have received from their masters and dic- 
tators, '^ they do not feel at liberty' ' to translate 
haptizo by any word that does not signify im,- 
merse. 

These societies do not, it seems, wish the mean- 
ing of the word haptizo to be known : their 
translators acquiesce; ^^and so,'' if they do not 
^^ wrap it iip,^^ they reject it, and substitute an- 
other meaning in the place of it. 

The American Bible Union was organized be- 



166 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

cause tlie American and Foreign Bible Society 
would not go far enough in carrying out tlie great 
^'^rincipy^ upon which it was organized, viz., 
^' that baptizo and its cognates should be ren- 
dered by words signifying immerse/^ etc. And 
yet they say this is not the main object of the 
movement at all. All they are aiming at is to 
secure '^faithful versions.^^ 

The American Bible Union '' must come to the 
help of the Lord against the mighty/^ ^^ and show 
to all who understand our language that hap- 
tism is immersion onlyy And yet they say this 
is not the thing they are aiming to do at all. 

Dr. Cone says if it is right to preach immer- 
sion, ^Ht is right to print it — TO print it in the 
Bible ; for if it is not in the Bible, it is not right 
to preach it nor print it.'^ And yet they say 
they do not know how the matter will turn out. 
They presume the translators will do justice to 
the meaning of the original. Their translators 
of the Scriptures into foreign tongues are putting 
words which signify immerse only in the place of 
haptizoj and they are publishing in their organ, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 1G7 

the Bible Union Reporter, specimens with this 
peculiarity. And yet they disclaim the sectarian 
character of the moyement. 

As regards the translation of the Scriptures 
into English, as carried forward by the American 
Bible Union, it is a matter of no importance 
whom they have employed or may employ as 
translators — whether Baptists or Pedobaptists — 
their version must be an immcrsionist version. 

They may have committed the translation of 
those portions containing hajptizo and its cognates 
to those translators who are immersionists in prin- 
ciple and theory. And the Pedobaptist trans- 
lators may have had committed to them no portion 
of the Scriptures involving the real issue. If 
this be the case, the translation will be a sectarian 
version, though Pedobaptists, as individuals on 
their own responsibility, may, '^ under written 
contract^' for the sake of the pay, be employed. 

But let this be as it may, the version must be 
immersionist in its character. 

They say : ^^All the revisors are distinguished 
scholars, and men of eminent ability ;^^ ^' and this 



168 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

is asserted and reiterated, I suppose to give con- 
fidence that the work will be done in a workman- 
like manner. But all this is just no guaranty at 
all. For the work is to be just what the Board 
of Managers, Messrs. Cone, Wyckoff, and Co., 
would have it, or it will not be at all. They must 
approve it finally before it goes forth to the world; 
so that they will be, in fact, the only responsible 
authors of it, at last. Let the reader mark the 
following language of the Fifth Annual Eeport of 
the American Bible Union : ^ Every book of the 
New Testament has been revised by scholars, and 
the manuscripts are in the possession of the Board. 
Of a considerable portion we have also duplicate 
revisions. Still, the work is by no means done. 
Your Board have directed their committee on 
versions to examine carefully each manuscript, 
and to recommend none for the press, unless they 
are satisfied that the revision possesses such a de- 
gree of merit that its publication will do honor 
to the Union. Otherwise it merely serves as aid 
to other revisors, who will do the work more 
thoroughly.' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 169 

^^ Here we have it^ and in language that admits 
of no mistake. Every book of the New Testa- 
ment has been already revised by scholars — and 
the manuscripts are in the possession of the Board. 
The scholars have done their part. But ^ still the 
work is by no means done.^ The Board have yet 
to revise the revision^ and pass their judgment 
upon it. The committee on versions must care- 
fully examine each manuscript, and are directed 
not even to print any portion, unless in their 
judgment it is faithful. They are to judge of 
'the degree of merif which any and every portion 
of the work may possess ; and none are to see the 
light unless they are satisfied ! And who are 
'theyf Mingled emotions of indignation, con- 
tempt, and pity, must fill the bosom of the en- 
lightened friend of Revelation on reading such 
pretensions from such a source. They boast of 
the eminent ability of the ' distinguished scholars' 
^ under written contract to do their work,' and 
make a great ' show of generosity and catholicity' 
in confiding the work to men holding their eccle- 
siastical connections with eight \_nine now] deno- 
15 



170 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

minations : and yet very carefully reserve to them- 
selves the privilege of supervising each manu- 
script; and of judging of its merits, and throwing 
it aside ' if they are not satisfied J ^^ — (Dr. A. New- 
ton, in the True Baptist.) 

I would here make this inquiry, as of primary 
importance : Are there any Pedobaptists belong- 
ing to this committee on revision ? Or are there 
any in the Board of Managers ? 

What though there should be Pedobaptists in 
the company of translators, this committee have 
the prerogative of determining what the version 
shall be in all its parts. 

They complain of the arbitrary power exercised 
in giving character to the common version. But 
did King James assume the prerogative of revis- 
ing the work of his translators ? Or did he ap- 
point a committee to do it ? 

Here is, under the circumstances, a most re- 
markable feature in ^Hhe greatest enterprise of 
the age,'^ conducted by " the only people who can 
do justice to the subject,^^ and ^^make a transla- 
tion worthy of the age/^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 171 

They have great confidence in their revisory, 
truly, that they must revise their revision, and 
not let it see the light unless it suits them ! 

And if they make it to suit therrij the reader 
sees very clearly what kind of a one it will be. 
If any proposition can be proved, we think this 
is proved : That, whoever the translators are, or 
may be, whether Baptists or Pedobaptists, the 
purpose is settled to substitute immerse for hap- 
the. To prove this, we have relied mainly on the 
friends of the new version movement. 

And yet the very men whose testimony we 
have quoted to prove this have disclaimed it, but 
in some instances, in the very same connection, 
they have admitted it again. They '^hlow hot and 
cold out of the same mouth^^ all the time. And 
no wonder. The nature of their position con- 
strains tbem to do so. They have two parties in 
their own ecclesiastical ranks to conciliate — the 
ultra immersionists on the one hand, and the mo- 
derate on tbe other. They must assert the main 
design clearly enough to please the former ; and 



172 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

they must disclaim it enough to avoid; as far as 
possible^ oiiending the latter. 

They remind one of the fable of the farmer 
and the fox. Reynard, pursued by the huntsmen, 
and finding that he was in danger of being taken, 
passing by a farmer's premises, requested that he 
might have refuge in his barn ; and that when 
the huntsmen should pass, and inquire if he had 
seen him, he should reply that he knew nothing 
of him. He consented, and agreed not to tell 
where he was. Reynard had scarcely secured his 
retreat, when on came the huntsmen, and in- 
quired of the farmer if he had seen any thing of 
a fox passing that way. The farmer, true to his 
promise, told them that he had not, but at the 
same time he pointed very significantly toward 
the barn. The huntsmen catching the idea, made 
search, and took poor Reynard. 

Thus the advocates of this movement disclaim 
most lustily that the design is to put immerse 
in the place of haptize. But, at the same time, 
they keep pointing most significantly in this very 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 173 

direction. If they are determined, like the 
Papists, Socinians, Universalists, Swedenborgians, 
Destructionists, etc., to have a version conformed 
to their views of biblical interpretation, let them 
candidly acknowledge it, and let them defend it 
upon its real merits. Let the public know where 
to find them. 



15* 



174 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER IX. 

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT OF THE REVISIONISTS. 

In this chapter I resume and continue a notice 
of the expedients which are adopted for the pur- 
pose of securing favor for this movement. 

How natural for men to seek to justify them- 
selves by endeavoring to show that others have 
done or are doing, as they have done or are doing ! 

This fact is very prominent in the defence 
which is made for the new version movement. 
Its friends seek to make the impression that the 
American Bible Society, in which all the ortho- 
dox Pedobaptist denominations are represented, 
have recently made a new version of the Bible ; 
and, therefore, they argue that Pedobaptists can- 
not, with any consistency, complain that they are 
striving to secure one. 

NoW; if it could be established that the Ame- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 175 

rican Bible Society have really made a new 
version of the Holy Scriptures, this could not of 
itself justify immersionists in making one ; espe- 
cially, such a one as we have proved they are 
seeking to secure. 

But to the allegation. From a tract, written 
by Rev. Dr, Lynd, and published by the American 
Bible Union, I make the following quotations : 

^^Let all revision men throughout Christendom 
reject the new edition by the American Bible So- 
ciety ; ... so that it never can become ' the com- 
monly received version.' Let us use the old 
editions until a pure version can be obtained.'^ 

^^What authority has the American Bible So- 
ciety to impose their revision upon the Churches 
of Christ ?'' 

^^Let their [the Baptists'] motto be, ^No revi- 
sion, or a perspicuous and faithful version.' '' 

^^Ah ! it is enough to make the heart sick to 
hear of opposition to a revised English Bible, by 
the very persons who intend to use and circulate 
hereafter the revised editions of the American 
Bible Society.'' 



176 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

1 quote again from a speecli of the Eev. Mr. 
Backus, before the American Bible Union, as pub- 
lished in the Bible Union Reporter for January, 
1855 : ^^ We are doing just what the best of men 
have done before us — trying to make perfect our 
version of the Holy Scriptures ; and whoever 
condemns us for so doing, must be prepared to 
condemn with us Wycliffe and Tyndale — those 
men of God to whom we are so largely indebted 
for our already excellent version of the Scriptures. 
Yes, and Coverdale, and Cranmer, and Parker, 
with the bishops and King James's revisors, and 
the managers of the American Bible Society^ 
must all fall under the same censure, for these 
have all, at one time or another, been guilty of 
the same thing/' 

The design of this language is, I fear, to make 
a false impression. It is true, Dr. L. calls the edition 
of the Holy Scriptures lately published by the Ame- 
rican Bible Society a '^ revision f^ and he admits 
that the friends of the Bible Union are seeking a 
^'version.^^ But this care in the use of terms is ob- 
served only in order that they may not be involved 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 177 

in difficulties, or may have a chance of explaining 
out ; while the evident tendency is to make the 
impression that the American Bible Society have 
made a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. 

The Rev. Mr. Backus is much more cautious in 
the use of language. He contends that the friends 
of this new version movement are only seeking 
to improve the common version : that they have 
precedent for this : that even the American Bible 
Society have set them a precedent. 

Now, here is an effort to keep out of view a 
main point; and that is, that the improvement (?) 
mainly sought in this movement is the substitu- 
tion of immerse and its cognates, in the Bible, for 
baptize; and thus make the Bible sectarian in 
its teachings. But have the American Bible So- 
ciety done this? Have they made a sectarian 
version ? Have they made any version at all ? 

The following quotation from the Report of the 
American Bible Society for 1852, page 38, will 
show what was contemplated in the incipiency of 
the measure : 

^^In one of the late reports^ the managers 



178 IHMERSIONTSTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



Stated that; with all the pains taken to keep the 
text of the English Bible correct, it was found 
that minor differences existed in different copies 
issued bj the Society, and also among those pub- 
lished by the several presses in England. Ah 
though these different readings did not affect the 
sense, as they pertained mostly to orthography , 
italic words, capital letters, and punctuation, yet 
it seemed highly important that there should be, 
if possible, uniformity in these particulars. They 
were specially desirous that the copies issued by 
the Society should be correct, and in harmony 
with one another. The committee on versions^ 
composed of several different denominations — 
some of the members familiar with investigations 
of this kind — were instructed to take measures 
for a careful collation of the Society's Bibles, 
and those issued by the British and Foreign Bible 
Society.'' 

I have before me the Report of the Committee 
on Versions, adopted May 1, 1851, after the 
work of collation had been completed. 

From this report we learn that, in accordance 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 179 

with the above instructions, the Committee on 
Versions, after various meetings, fixed upon the 
following rules, which should serve for guidance 
in the work of collation ; and it will be observed 
that in these rules the instructions of the Board 
to the Committee are fully recognized, and are 
not transcended : 

^^1. The royal octavo edition of the English 
Bible, issued by the Society, be adopted as the 
basis for corrections. 

^^ 2. That the said American copy be compared 
with recent copies of the four leading British 
editions, viz., those of London, Oxford, Cambridge, 
and Edinburgh, and also with the original edition 
of 1611. 

^^3. That the comparison include the ortho- 
graphy , the capital letters, words in italic, punc- 
tuation, contents of the chapters, and running 
heads of the columns. 

*^ 4. That so far as the four English copies are 
uniform, the American copy be conformed to 
them, unless otherwise specially ordered by the 
Committee. 



180 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

"5. That the collator be instructed^ in his 
further labors^ [this rule was adopted after the 
work was begunj to apply the principles and 
cases previously adopted and decided by this Com- 
mittee, and that; therefore, he lay before the 
Committee only such cases as have not before 
been acted upon, or such as may seem to need 
further consideration. 

^^ 6. That in respect to the indefinite article, 
the form an to be used before all vowels and diph- 
thongs not pronounced as consonants, and also 
before h silent or unaccented ; and that the form 
a be employed in all other cases. 

^^7. That in cases where the four recent 
British copies, and also the original edition and 
our own copy, vary in punctuation^ the uniform 
usage of any three of the copies shall be followed. 

^^8. That, when the London, the Oxford, and 
Cambridge editions agree in the use or omis- 
sion of the hyphen in compound words, the same 
usage to be adopted. 

^^9. That when the term scripture or scrips 
tures refers to the whole volume of inspired 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 181 

truth, it begin with a capital letter; but when 
the reference is to some particular portion, it be- 
gin with a small letter/^ 

It is proper to state that the E,ev. J. "W. Mo- 
Lane was employed as collator; and, for the 
greater convenience, the Committee appointed a 
sub-committee, consisting of Drs. Robinson and 
Vermilye, ^^to inspect the alterations suggested 
by the collator, and see that they are made ac- 
cording to the rules prescribed ; and if cases of 
peculiar importance arise, to consult the entire 
Committee/' 

These rules show what the Committee were en- 
gaged to do — not to make or secure a new trans- 
lation or version, but to make a collation for the 
purpose of correcting errors that had crept into 
the commonly received version. 

This will appear more distinctly in the lan- 
guage of the Committee : 

^^ It will be apparent, from an inspection of 

the rules above given, that the great and leading 

object of the Committee has everywhere been 

uniformity. It is only when the British copies 

16 



182 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

differ that any question has been raised^ except 
in a few instances, to be noted in the sequel. It 
has been the wish and endeavor of the Committee 
to see the English version restored, so far as pos- 
sible, to its original purity, saving the necessary 
changes of orthograjphy ^ and other like variations, 
which would assuredly be acceptable to the trans- 
lators themselves, were they living at the present 
day. The Committee have had no authority and 
no desire to go behind the translators, nor in any 
respect to touch the original version of the text, 
unless in evident cases of inadvertence or incon- 
sistency, open and manifest to all.^^ 

I will now cite a few specimens of variations 
secured by the Committee, to show that the de- 
sign of the measure, as thus expressed, was fully 
maintained. I will notice each class of variations, 
as laid down in the report, and will select one or 
more specimens from each. 

^'1. Words. — In Ruth iii. 15, all the present 
copies read : ^And sAe went into the city / but the 
Hebrew and translators have it : ^And he went 
into the city.^ Again, in Cant. ii. 7, all the pre- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 183 

sent copies read : ^ Nor awake my love till he 
please ;' but the Hebrew and the translators, ^ till 
she please/ In Isaiah i. 16, the present copies 
read, ^Wash you,' where the translators put, 
^Wash ye.' This is according to the Hebrew, 
and has been restored. Another change occurs 
m Josh. xix. 2, where the recent copies read : 
^ and Sheba ;^ but the translators have, ' or She- 
ba.^ Here the Hebrew may, itself, be taken 
either way; but the number of thirteen cities 
specified in verse 6 requires or. 

'^2. Orthography. — The Committee enter- 
tain a reverence for the antique forms of words 
and orthography in the Bible, where they do not 
conflict with the clear understanding of the sense. 
Indeed, it is such forms, in a measure, which im- 
part an air of dignity and venerableness to our 
version. For this reason, phrases like, ^hoised 
up the mainsail,' (Acts xxvii. 40,) also words 
like ^graff' and ^graffed,' (Eom. xi. 17, 19, 23, 
24,) have not been altered. But when these 
forms have become obsolete and unintelligible; 
or have already been changed in some places, and 



184 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

not in others; or when in themselves they are 
of no importance, there seems to be no valid rea- 
son for longer retaining them. By far the greater 
portion of the readers of the English Bible are 
unlearned persons and children ; and it is essen- 
tial to remove every thing in the mere form, 
which may become to any a stumbling-block in 
the way of the right and prompt understanding 
af God's holy word. 

^^The following examples still occur in the Eng- 
lish editions; but have mostly already been 
changed in the Edinburgh and American copies. 
Many of them are variations from the edition of 
1611: 







ENGLISH COPIES. 


CORRECTED. 


Gen. 


, yiii. 1, 


asswaged. 


assuaged. 


ii 


xi. 3, 


morter. 


mortar. 


it 


it ii 


throughly. 


thoroughly, (tr. 
Cam.) 


a 


ifxx. 35, 


ringstraked. 


ringstreaked. 


a 


'' 37, 


strakes. 


streaks. 


ii 


xxxi. 10, 


grisled. 


grizzled. 


Ex. 


vi. 21, 


Zitliri. (prob. error Zichri (tr. Edin. ) 






of press.) 




a 


xxxii. 20, 


strowed. 


strewed. 


Lev, 


. xiv. 42, 


plaister 


plaster. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 185 





ENGLISH COPIES. 


CORRECTED. 


Num. X. 25, 


rereward. 


rearward. 


** XX. 14, 


travel. 


travail. 


Dent. xiv. 15, 


cuckow. 


cuckoo. 


" XV. 17, 


aul. 


awl. 


Judges V. 22, 


pransings. 


prancings. 


Ruth i. 18, 


stedfastlj. 


steadfastly. 


2 Sam. XT. 12, 


counseller. (tr. 
Lond. Cam.) 


counsellor. 


1 Kings vi. 15, 


cieling. (tr. sieling] 


( ceiling. 


2 Cbron. ii. 16, 


, flotes. 


floats. 


Neh. ix. 1, 


sackclotbes. 


sackcloth, (as in 
Joel i. 13.) 


Isa. xli. 2, 


sodering. 


soldering. 


Jer. ii. 22, 


sope. 


soap. 


Ezra xl. 31, 


utter court. 


outer court. 


Zech. xi. 13, 


pris-ed. 


prized. 


Matt, xxvii. 48, 


spunge. 


sponge. 


Acts vii. 28, 


diddest. 


didst. 


Eph. V. 8, 


sometimes. 


sometime, (i. e., 
once, formerly.) 


1 Tim. ii. 9, 


broidered. (tr. 
broided.) 


braided. 


Key. xiy. 20, 


borse bridles. 


horses' bridles, (s 
the Greek.) 



^^A variation likewise occurs in the mode of 

writing the imperfect and participle of many 

verbs; all of which have been corrected to the 

present standard. The following are examples : 

16^ 



186 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

G-en. viii. 11, ^pluckt;' but ^plucked/ Deut. 
sxviii. 63. Gen. xviii. 7, ^fetcht/ but in verse 
4, ^ fetched.^ Gen. xxi. 7, ^ have born/ in recent 
copies ; the translators, correctly, ' have borne.' 
Deut. ii. 37, ^forbad,' in recent copies ; the 
translators, correctly, ^forbade.' Ezra ix. 3, 
' astonied / and so in all the copies : Job xviii. 
20; Ezra iv. 17; Dan. iii. 24, etc. In some 
passages this has been already changed to ' aston- 
ished,' as in Job xvii. 8. 

^^In expressing the plurals of such Hebrew 
words as are not rendered in the text, the trans- 
lators adopted the plural form of the Hebrew in 
im, but with the superfluous addition of s; as 
cheruhwiSj sera^himSj Nethimims^ Anahims^ etc. 
This is strictly wrong, and is not in accordance 
with present usage. The s has therefore every- 
where been dropped in such words : as Gen. iii. 
24, Isa. vi. 2, 6, etc. 

^^In respect to the particles of exclamation ^ 
and Ohj it appears, on examination, that the for- 
mer (0) is everywhere used before a vocative 
oase ; while before an optative we find both : ' 



IMMEllSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 187 

that/ Deut. xxxii. 29, Ps. Iv. 6 ; and ' Oh that/ 
Job vi. 2, Jer. ix. 1. In order to maintain the 
proper distinction, the form Oh has everywhere 
been retained with the optative, leaving as the 
sign of the vocative. 

'' The forms of the indefinite article a or an have 
been adjusted throughout according to the sixth 
rule above given. In order to show the necessity 
of the rule, the following examples of inconsist- 
ency in all the copies, from first to last, are here 
selected : 

^^ Gen. XXV. 25, ^an hairy/ Gen. xxvii. 11, ^a 
hairy.' Judges iv. 21, ^an hammer/ Jer. xxiii. 
29, ^a hammer.' Isa. xi. 16, ^an highway/ 
Is. xix. 23, ' a highway.' Matt. x. 12, ^ an house / 
Mark iii. 25, ^a house.' Ruth i. 12, ^an hus- 
band/ Ruth i. 12, ' 2l husband.' 

" 2. Proper Names. — There exists in the Old 
Testament a very considerable diversity in the 
mode of writing Hebrew proper names in Eng- 
lish. Thus, the names of the first seven patri- 
archs of the world, as they appear in Gen., chap. 
iv., and as they are now usually written, are: 



188 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, 
Enoch. But in 1 Chron. i. 1, sq., the same are 
recorded as : Adam^ Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Ma- 
halaleel, Jered, Henoch; the Hebrew forms 
being in both places precisely the same. This is 
but a single specimen, and shows at least an in- 
advertence on the part of the translators. In 
some instances, also, there is a slight difference 
even in the Hebrew forms themselves, in differ- 
ent books. In cases like the preceding, involv- 
ing, as they do, a difference of pronunciation, 
the Committee have not felt themselves author- 
ized to make any change, regarding the great 
principle of uniformity in the copies as of higher 
importance. 

'' In the New Testament the case is somewhat 
different. Here it is to be regretted, that in re- 
spect to persons already known in the Old Testa- 
ment^ the translators did not retain their names 
in the form in which they had thus become fami- 
liar. Instead of this, they have introduced the 
personages of ancient Jewish history under names 
modified, and sometimes disguised, by transmission 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 189 

through the Greek tongue. Thus, in Acts vii 
45, and Heb. iv. 8, we find the name Jesus, which 
the common reader will naturally refer only to the 
Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Grreek 
form for JosJiiia, and should properly have been 
so written. In the same way the name Core in 
Jude 11 is unintelligible to most readers; for 
comparatively few would ever suspect its identity 
with Korah of the Old Testament. So, too, the 
translators have sometimes taken the form of the 
Greek genitive Juda, Jona, to represent the He- 
brew names Judahj Jonah. 

'' The principle adopted in such cases has been 
the following : When such names occur singly in 
the narrative, and there would arise no marked 
difference in the pronunciation, the form in the 
Old Testament has been restored. The name 
Jesus, as above cited, is explained in the margin 
by the translators themselves. The following are 
examples : 

FORMER READING. CORRECTED. 

"Matt. ii. 6, Juda. " Judah. 

" X. 15, Gomorrha. Gomorrak 



190 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



FORMER READING. 


CORRECTED. 


Matt. xxi. 5, Sion. 


Zion. 


'' xxiv. 37, Noe. 


Noali. 


Acts yii. 11, Chanaan. 


Canaan. 


'' Yii. 80, Sina. 


Sinai. 


Heb. xi. 11, Sara. 


Sarah. 


Rev. ii. 14, Balac. 


Balak. 



^^3. Compound Words. — The eighth rule pre- 
scribes that the usage of the English copies be 
followed in respect to the insertion or omission of 
the hyphen in compound words. It was found 
that the Edinburgh and American copies employ 
the hyphen in very many instances where, by the 
operation of the rule, it has been dropped. In 
such cases, generally, the words have afterwards 
been written as one word, or as two words, accord- 
ing as the accent in pronunciation is placed upon 
the first word, or otherwise. Thus, hedcJiamhery 
handmaid; but meat offering^ hurnt sacrifice 
This accords for the most part with the English 
copies. 

^^4. Capital Letters. — The ninth rule pro- 
vides for the manner of writing the term scrip- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 191 

Uive and scriptures, with or without a capital 
letter. A similar rule has been followed in prac- 
tice in respect to the word '' Spirit, ^^ which every- 
where is made to begin with a capital when it re- 
fers to the Spirit of God as a Divine Agent ; but 
not when it denotes other spiritual beings, or the 
spirit of man. The following is a specimen of 
the changes which have been made : 

ENGLISH COPIES. CORIIECTED. 

G-en. vi. 3, M;^ spirit. My Spirit. 

(So too Gen. xli. 38 : Num. xxiv. 2.) 

Ps. xxi. 7, most High. Most High. 

Isa. Ixiii. 10, holy Spirit. Holy Spirit. 

Rev. iv. 5, seven Spirits of seven spirits of God. 
God. 

^^5. Words in Italics. — These were inserted 
by the translators to fill out the English idiom, in 
cases where the Hebrew and Greek usage omits 
the copula or other connecting or dependent 
words. These insertions were carefully revised 
and compared with the original by Dr. Blaney ; 
but notwithstanding his diligence^ quite a num- 
ber of errors have been detected^ some of which 



192 IMMERSIONISTS AGxUNST THE BIBLE. 

belong to the translators. The following are ex- 
amples : 

^^Bx. viii. 21, 22, 24, 29, 81. Here the re- 
cent copies all read, ^swarms of flies f while in 
Ps. Ixxviii. 45, and cv. 31, the same Hebrew 
word is rendered, ^ divers sorts of flies,^ without 
italics. In all these passages the edition of 1611 
has no italics. 

^^ Judges ix. 53. The edition of 1611 and all 
others read: ^And all to break his skull. ^ This 
has been often misunderstood, and has been some- 
times printed : ^And all to brake.' But ' all 
to' is an antique form, signifying ^altogether/ 
and was last so used by Milton. It here gives an 
emphasis to ^ brake' which is not in Hebrew. 
The Committee have therefore put all-to in italics, 
with a hyphen, and have inserted a note of ex- 
planation in the margin. 

^' Luke i. 35 : ^ Which shall be born of thee.' 
So in all the copies first and last ; but the words 
of thee should be in italic ; there being nothing 
corresponding in the Greek. 

^^ John x. 28, 29 : ^Any man .... no man.' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 193 

So in the edition of 1611. The Oxford copy 
rightly reads^ ^Any man .... no man f the 
Edinburgh and American have^ ^ any . . . none/ 
corrected; like the Oxford; ^ any man .... no 
man.' 

^'Q. Punctuation. — It was found that the 
three English copies have a general uniformity in 
respect to punctuation^ especially in the frequent 
use of the colon ; while the Edinburgh and Ame- 
rican often prefer the semicolon^ and are in gen- 
eral more conformed to the edition of 1611. The 
seventh rule prescribes that Hhe uniform usage 
of any three of the copies shall be followed.^ In 
the great majority of instances^ the operation of 
the rule has produced conformity with the Eng- 
lish copies. In cases where the rule was not ap- 
plicable, the Committee have endeavored to decide 
each according to its merits. 

'^ The following five changes made in the punc- 
tuatioU; are all, it is believed^ which affect the 
sense : 

^^Eom. iv. 1: ^That Abraham, our father as 
pertaining to the flesh, hath found. ^ Here, ac- 
17 



194 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

cording to the order of the Greek, it should read : 
^ hath found as pertaining to the flesh/ The true 
pointing, therefore, is a comma after Abraham, 
and another after father. This is found in no 
edition hitherto. 

'^ 1 Cor. xvi. 22 : ^Let him be Anathema Mar- 
an-atha.^ There should be a period after Ana- 
thema, which no edition inserts. The two words 
^ maran atha' are simply an Aramean formula, 
signifying ^ The Lord cometh.' Compare Phil, 
iv. 5. 

^^2 Cor. X. 8-11. All the copies now have a 
colon after verse 8, and a period after verse 9, con- 
necting the two verses in sense. The true point- 
ing, however, is a period after verse 8, and then 
a colon after verse 9, and also verse 10 ; thus con- 
necting verse 9 as protasis with verse 11 as apo- 
dasis. So Chrysostom, and so the Syriac and 
Latin versions ; and this is required by the logi- 
cal sequence. 

^^ Heb. xiii. 7. Here should be a period at the 
end of the verse after conversation.^ So the trans- 
lators, the Oxford and other copies. The Edin- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 195 

burgh and American liave sometimes a colon, and 
sometimes a comma. 

'^ Rev. xiii. 8. Here a comma is inserted after 
^ slain/ since the qualification ^from the foun- 
dation of the world^ refers not to ' slain/ but to 
' written / as is shown by the parallel verse, Rev. 
xvii. 8 : the translators wrongly insert a comma 
after ' Lamb / others put no stop at all. 

'^1. Parentheses. — Our collation has shown 
that very many parentheses have been introduced 
into the text since the edition of 1611. Some 
of these are fit and proper ; but in general they 
only mar the beauty of the page, without adding 
any thing to perspicuity. In some instances, too, 
they have the force of commentary. For these 
reasons, those not inserted by the translators have 
been in great part omitted : as in Rom. v. 13-17 ; 
xi. 8 : 2 Cor. xii. 2 : Gal. i. 1 : Rev. ii. 9, etc. 

^^ 8. Brackets. — These are found but once — 1 
John ii. 23, enclosing .the last clause of the verse, 
which the translators put in italics. This was 
done because that clause was not then contained 
in the received text of the Greek New Testament; 



196 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

althougli the sense requires it, and it was read in 
tlie best manuscripts and in tlie versions. The 
clause is now inserted in all critical editions of 
the Greek Testament ; and, as there is no ques- 
tion of its genuineness, both the brackets and the 
italics have been dropped.'' 

These examples are sufficient to show the na- 
ture of the work which the American Bible So- 
ciety have secured. I might have given speci- 
mens of the changes made in the contents of the 
chapters, the running heads of the columns, the 
marginal readings and references, and chronology; 
but as these do not affect the text, it is not neces- 
sary to do so. 

The Committee use the following language in 
closing their report : '' Such is the account which 
the Committee have to render to the Board of 
Managers, of their stewardship in this work ; al- 
though this account, and the few specimens above 
presented, can of course afford no adequate idea 
of the time, the attention, and the labor bestowed 
on the work by the sub-committee and the col- 
lator during the period of three years. And now, 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 197 

invoking the continued blessing of tlie Most High, 
and with a deep sense of their own imperfections, 
the Committee would commend the result of their 
labors to the favorable consideration of the Board, 
as also of the Society, and of the Christian pub- 
lic. They claim no special freedom from error : 
they may, very possibly, not always have fully 
carried out their own rules : they may have com- 
mitted oversights. But they shrink from no re- 
sponsibility ; and they have no desire to cover up, 
either what they have done, or what they have left 
undone. The thing has not been done in a corner. 
^^As illustrating the necessity of the present col- 
lation, and the remarks already made upon the 
exposure to variation and error in the printing of 
so many millions of copies, it may suffice here to 
mention that the number of variations recorded 
by the collator, solely in the text and punctuation 
of the six copies compared, falls but little short 
of twenty-four thousand. Yet of all this great 
number, there is not one which mars the integrity 
of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of 
the Bible. 

17* 



198 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

'' In tlius closing their labors, tlie Committee de- 
sire, with grateful praise to God, distinctly and 
formally to state, that no decision whatever has 
heen niade^ and nothing ivhatever has been done, 
except with entire unanimity on the part of the 
Committee and those acting with them.^' 

It is proper to give the reader the names of 
the eminent men composing the Committee on 
Versions, and which are appended to the report 
from which we have made the above quotations. 
They are as follows : Gardiner Spring, Thomas 
Cock, Samuel H. Turner, Edward Kobinson, 
Thomas E. Vermilye, John McClintock, Richard 
S. Storrs. 

I will conclude on this point with a few 
remarks : 

1. The work accomplished under the auspices 
of the American Bible Society is not a version or 
translation at all, but a collation. Let this be 
noted by the reader. Collation, as used in this 
case, means comparison of some six editions of 
the English Bible, embracing the edition of 1611 
as the standard, for the purpose of correcting 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 199 

errors wliicli liad accidentally crept into the 
Scriptures. There was no translation from the 
original Hebrew and Greek, but a mere correc- 
tion of errors that had gotten into a translation 
already made and acknowledged as the standard. 
The object of the Committee simply, to use their 
own language, ^^ was to restore the English ver- 
sion to its original purity.'^ They affirm that 
they ^^ had no authority and no desire to go be- 
hind the translators, nor in any respect to touch 
the original version of the text.^' 

Except in ortliographi/ and inadvertencies 
open and manifest to all, they have not touched 
the original version. This is fully and strikingly 
illustrated in the foregoing specimens of the varia- 
tions they have made. In this respect, what 
the American Bible Society have done is entirely 
different from what the American Bible Union 
are engaged in doing. They have denounced 
the common version as unfaithful to the original ; 
and are seeking a new version, which, as they 
claim, will be a more faithful exhibition of the 
original Scriptures. 



200 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

2. The work accomplisliecl by the American 
Bible Society is not sectarian in its character. 
The learned men employed in the collation 
belong to and represented the denominations who 
patronize the Society. And we learn from their 
reports that every thing they did was agreed 
npon ^^with entire unanimity/^ and then 
finally approved and adopted by the Board of 
Managers and the whole Society. But is the 
translation sought by the American Bible Union 
to be non-sectarian in its character ? If any pro- 
position can be proved, we have already proved, 
by an amount and character of evidence perfectly 
overwhelming to the unprejudiced mind, that 
this new version movement was conceived in a 
desire to put immerse and its cognates in the 
place of baptize and its cognates ; and that it has 
been prosecuted up to this time mainly for the 
accomplishment of this object. 

Let the enemies of the common version show 
one instance in which a change has been made in 
the common version that favors any sectarian 
view or usage. They cannot do this. And yet 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 201 

they are endeavoring to m^e use of tlie fact of 
the collation of the Scriptures by the American 
Bible Society as excuse for them in what they are 
doing. They are very much concerned to get a 
cloak to cover their misdoing. They cannot get 
the American Bible Society to help bear the fear- 
ful responsibility they have incurred. They will 
be constrained to meet it unaided. The old 
adage that '' a drowning man will catch at a 
straw/ ^ is very forcibly illustrated in the manner 
in which this movement is advocated. Its friends 
seem to doubt its intrinsic merits^ and^ therefore, 
the fallacious use of the argumentum ad Ifiomi- 
nem, A specimen of this sopbism has already 
been noticed in this chapter. Before we close it, 
we will notice another specimen. 

It is stated that all the principal Pedobaptist 
denominations have had their denominational 
versions of the Holy Scriptures : that Doddridge, 
Macknight, and George Campbell, have made 
translations for the Presbyterians : that Wesley 
has made a translation for the Methodists, etc. 

Now, we admit that Doddridge, Macknight, 



202 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Wesley, and other learned men, have made trans- 
lations of the Holy Scriptures. But did they 
design that they should be recognized as the 
standards of the denominations to which they 
belonged ? Did they ever intimate any such 
thing at any time ? Did the denominations to 
which these men belonged think of receiving 
their versions in the place of the common 
version ? 

These men made their translations as indivi- 
duals. In making them, they were not considered 
by themselves, nor their denominations, nor the 
world, as doing their work, however praiseworthy 
it might be in itself, at the bidding or request of 
the Churches to which they belonged. Where is 
there in Mr. Wesley's translation, for instance, 
any thing indicating that he expected or desired 
that it should displace the common version ? At 
what time and at what place did the Methodists, 
in any form or manner, intimate that they 
desired to displace the translation of King James 
with Mr. Wesley's ? 

It is true that both the preachers and people 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 203 

have read Mr. Wesley's translation of the New 
Testament, as they have read his Notes, Sermons, 
etc., simply as the production of a learned and 
good man. But they have never recognized him, 
nor do they recognize him as a standard transla- 
tor. The same remarks are applicable to the 
translations of other learned Pedobaptist authors. 
But admitting, for the sake of argument, that 
these versions are the standards of the denomina- 
tions with which their authors were identified, 
they were not designed merely to subserve the 
interests of their denominational theories and 
practice. As far as the versions of Doddridge 
and Macknight are concerned, they are, in some 
respects, decidedly unfavorable to Presbyterian 
practice. 

In Wesley's version, in what single instance is 
there a variation from the common version favor- 
ing the peculiar theory and usages of the author 
and his sect ? 

But we have proved that a distinctive feature 
in the version the immersionists are seeking, is 
the substitution of immerse for haptizej so that 



204 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

their peculiar usage may have the authority of 
Scripturej though it may be Baptist Scripture 
after all. 

If these revisionists had adduced the case of 
the Papists, SwedenborgianS; Unitarians, Uni- 
versalists, Destructionists, etc., as having secured 
versions to sustain their peculiar theories, the 
cases would have been much more apposite. The 
Bible of the Papists has penance instead of 
repentance ) and so of the others. The Baptist 
Bible will have no baptism in it, but immerse 
instead of it. 

Our new version friends have ''precedent^' 
truly for revision. In this age of improvement, 
when a fanatical sect cannot prove their ultraisms 
from the common version, they at once put it on 
the rack, and constrain it to testify in their favor. 
The Baptists and Campbellites are endeavoring 
to keep up with the times. They will not be 
fully up, however, till they get a new Bible entire 
from heaven, or some other source, like the 
Mormons. 

Conybeare and Howson, in their late learned 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 205 

and able work, ^^The Life and Epistles of St. 
Paul/' have been quoted as translators in favor 
of revision. 

But to show the utter recklessness of the ad- 
vocates of this movement, I quote from vol. i., p. 
18, Introd. They give in the introduction the 
reasons of their making a translation of PauFs 
epistles. It was not on account of any low 
opinion of the common version. For they say, as 
if they had in mind the temerity of our revision- 
ists in publishing their version, as they are doing, 
alongside the common version : It is ^' a rash ex- 
periment to provoke such a contrast between the 
matchless style of the authorized version and that 
of the modern translator, thus placed side by 
side.'' 

They justify their translation solely on the 
ground that they had a special object in view, 
which could only be accomplished by a para- 
phrase ; and it is evident that they rest much of 
the value of their work upon their paraphrastic 
skill, which is, they admit, rather the merit of 

the commentator than of the translator. They 
18 



206 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

evidently intend to convey the idea tliat the 
authorized version is to be held in estimation for 
its great faithfulness to the original as it is, and 
not as sectarians would suppose it should be. 

Hence they say, ^^ If the text admit of two 
interpretations, our version (the common) endea- 
vors, if possible, to preserve the same ambiguity, 
and effects this often with admirable skill/' This 
they characterize as ^^a merit in an authorized 
version/' 

The design of the authorized version is, they 
say, to make " a standard of authority, and ulti- 
mate appeal in controversy/' This they give as 
the reason of its great faithfulness to the original. 
This fidelity, they admit, is the occasion of diffi- 
culties ; but they add, '' Had any other course 
been adopted, every sect would have had its own 
Bible : as it is, this one translation has been all 
but unanimously received for three centuries :" 
(two and a half they should have said.) 

The general conclusion of these learned men, 
in their apology for a new version of Paul's 
epistles; is, that the authorized version is inimi- 



I3I3IERSI0NISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 207 

table and unapproachable as a standard, and that 
new versions or translations should only have in 
view a special purpose, which, of course, is to be 
judged of by circumstances : should always be 
avowed unambiguously ; and should be permitted 
to pass the ordeal of public opinion. They avow 
the purpose of their work to be " to give a living 
picture of the Apostle Paul himself, and the cir- 
cumstances by which he was surrounded. '^ The 
work is a biography jaf the apostle. Much that 
is peculiar to him is contained in his epistles. 
A new version is resorted to for the purpose of 
catching what the versionist supposes to be the 
spirit of the apostle. 



208 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER X. 

CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE COMMON VERSION. 

I HAVE already demonstrated tliat the main de- 
sign of this movement is to substitute immerse 
for haptize ; yet as a great many changes have 
been proposed^ though merely to gain favor foi 
the substitution of immerse^ it may be proper to 
notice some of them. Let it be borne in mind 
that we have never denied that the common ver- 
sion has defects. This has all along been ad- 
mitted. And this is true of all the versions that 
have ever been made ; and it will be true of any 
that may yet be made. In the mnguage of the 
Rev. Mr. Hodge, a Baptist minister of Brooklyn, 
N. Y., ^^A man who could remove every fault, and 
produce a perfect translation, would be able to 
kindle a comet and send it blazing through the 
heavens.^' And were the position assumed and 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 209 

acted upon, that no translation that is not perfect, 
and especially that all evangelical Christians 
would regard as perfect, should be patronized, we 
should be constrained to let the revelation of God 
remain in the original tongues, or cease the work 
of Bible distribution altogether. Says Dr. Wil- 
liams, who, though a Baptist, is opposed to this 
movement : ^^ No man will claim for the English 
Scriptures perfection. A perfect version is a 
nonentity, and we believe an impossibility, whilst 
imperfect and uninspired translators are the only 
agents to furnish it, and a living language, ever 
changing from the very fact of its life, remains 
the only material on which such translators are to 
work. No sober man can expect to attain, no 
modest nor thorough scholar would venture to 
promise, a version that approached immaculate 
perfection. ^^ 

That the translation sought by the advocates of 
this movement will not be ^Hmmacvlate^^^ will 
appear as very likely from a slight examination of 
some of the changes from the common version 
which have been proposed. It will appear very 
18* 



210 IMMEHSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

evident that these pious Bible-menders are sadly 
under the deluding influence of a spirit of extra- 
vagant hypercriticism. 

Much, stress is laid on what they call ohsolete 
terms. ^^ Let^^ as used in Rom. i. 13, and 2 
Thess. ii. 7, etc., it is said ^' contradicts the sense/^ 
But no intelligent reader will be in danger of mis- 
understanding the term. No one, not even a Sab- 
bath-school scholar of ten years of age, will be in 
any oanger of construing it as meaning " permit^^ 
or '^ allow.'^ The very connection determines the 
sense. Who misunderstands the familiar phrase, 
^^ without let or hindrance?^' ^^And the time 
will never arrive when the reader of God's word 
will not have occasion to exercise his discrimina- 
tion ; or when its language will not need to be 
illustrated and explained.^' The phrase " bid him 
God speed,'^ 2 John 10, is pronounced '^ pro- 
fane^ ^ by these holy critics. But who but they 
can see any profanity in the use of the phrase, as 
a benediction on one supposed to be in a right 
course of action ? 

The phrase ^' God forbid,'^ as a form of empha- 



IMJMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 211 

tic denial, is pronounced ^^an irreverent oath/' 
And they suggest the translation of Gral. vi. 14, 
as follows : '''May it not he that I should glory/' 
etc. Dr. Williams, of New York, who, perhaps, 
has no superior in this country in his knowledge 
of English literature, shows most conclusively 
that there is no ground for this harsh criticism. 
He shows that the phrase itself is preserved in the 
original Hebrew, in the case of the good Naboth 
refusing to sell the inheritance of his fathers to 
Ahab, (1 Kings, xxi. 3,) and on three other oc- 
casions, as used by David, when that magnani- 
mous saint forbore to take the life of Saul, and 
once when he poured out, as a drink offering, the 
water that had been procured at the well of Beth- 
lehem at the risk of his warriors' lives. (1 Sam. 
xxiv. 6, xxvi. 11; and 1 Chron. xi. 19.) 

It is argued that the original Greek phrase, 
\ir\ yevoLTOj me genoito, '^ has not in it the idea 
of God ;" and that ^^ by no means," or '' be it not," 
would be preferable to the introduction of the 
name of God '^ without any authority from Scrip- 
ture." But in the sacred text itself, according 



212 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

to Dr. Williams, the word for the Divine Bein^ 
occurs in the four passages in the Hebrew to which 
we have referred. And so, consequently, we have 
^^ scriptural authority'^ for this form of expres- 
sion as translated in the common version. 

The phrases suggested are utterlj'^ too tame to 
express " the strong and indignant disclaimer and 
the impetuous dislike the original phrase conveys. '^ 
Our word ^'never^^ would better express ^^its pas- 
sionate and impulsive negative.^' But this im- 
plies rather a reliance on our own strength to avert 
an impending evil; while the Greek phrase is 
rather an appeal to a higher and overruling might 
to avert the danger or the sin. Tholuck, on the 
Romans, calls it '^ the strongest form of negation/' 
and gives the Hebrew term ^' chalilah^^ as its 
equivalent. The phrases proposed to be substi- 
tuted for ^'God forhidJ^ all necessarily refer the 
mind to a superior power, as well as this phrase. 
If they are not thus construed, they have no 
sense nor force in them ; and they are conse- 
quently subject to the same objection. And if 
they do not refer to the true God, as the Supreme 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 213 

in authority and power, to whom do they refer ? 
Do the advocates of the new version intend to 
establish the recognition of any other god as 
supreme ? I think this will be equally as '' ir- 
reverent^ ^ as the assumed use of God's name 
^' without any scriptural authority/' 

The phrase '' Holy Grhost/' as an appellation 
of the third person of the Holy Trinity, is ob- 
jected to, as expressing only the idea of an appa- 
rition, and as being '' manifest hlaspJiemyJ^ 

Dr. Williams shows, in reply to this charge, 
^Hhat the parent Anglo-Saxon had the term not 
only in the sense of pliantoniy but also in the 
general, reverent idea of ' spirit J The German, 
with which our people and literature are daily 
growing of closer kin and fuller acquaintance, 
has essentially the same word, in the large and 
innocuous sense. And the classics of the lan- 
guage — not to be extruded by our sweeping 
criticisms from the libraries and schools of the 
English race — Dryden, whose prose Fox took as 
the very standard of pure English, and Shak- 
speare, and the great Hooker, and the English 



214 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



I 



Common Prayer, all have tlie word ^ghostly' in 
tlie signification of spiritual and religious. To 
divide tlie appellation from the term ^ Holy/ 
indissolubly employed with it, in our hymns and 
prayers and best religious writers, is neither fair 
criticism, nor duly reverent to the theme and 
Being. And would the brethren who adopt this 
line of argument, receive it, if their fellow-dis- 
ciples, who see and feel no such unhappy associa- 
tions with this term that is sacred to their hearts 
from their earHest and holiest recollections of it, 
should ask the brethren to carry out the same 
principle in its bearings on the other Name which 
the translators use for the Paraclete ? Every 
one at all conversant with the familiar and lighter 
literature of our tongue, knows that, from the 
first Quakers down to our own time, superficial 
and reckless writers have delighted to confound 
the dread name of the third person in the God- 
head with the liquid and disguised death that 
brims the wine-cup and enriches the dram-seller. 
The lighter literature of England absolutely 
reeks with irreverent allusions of this kind, re- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 215 

calling the blasphemy which the enemies of the 
apostles employed on the day of Pentecost^ when 
they attributed the influences of the descended 
^Spirit' to ^ neio wine! Would not the bre- 
thren .... be generally and justly wounded, 
if, because of those irreverent expressions, we 
should strive to denounce the expression itself, 
and employ of it strong expressions parallel to 
those used .... against the other Name — ex- 
pressions only serving to nail on the writhing me- 
mory of the pious, profane associations with holy 
things-7— associations they would deplore and de- 
test, and strive earnestly and prayerfully to forget 
for ever ? We know well the brethren . . . would 
shrink from laying a hand like Uzzah's, rash even 
in its honest endeavors to stay the ark, upon the 
cause they love.^^ 

Webster defines the phrase ^^ Holy Ghost ^' — 
'^ The third person in the adorable Trinity. '' 

But is not the phrase '^ Holy Spirit^' obnoxious 
to the very same objection which they urge 
against ^' Holy Ghost V^ Is not the term ^^spiritj" 
with which they propose translating rrvevfia, 



216 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

pneuma, used to signify an apparition — a ghost ? 
So says Webster; and upon their own principle, 
the use of the term " spirit,^ ^ as an appellative 
of the third person in the Trinity^ '' is manifest 
blasphemy/^ It is a matter of some interest to 
know what term they will secure. 

The substitution of ^^ Teacher'' for ^^ Master'' 
is urged as ^^ demanded'' by fidelity to the truth, 
in John xiii. 13^ 14 : Matt. xvii. 24, ix. 11, x. 
24 : Luke vi. 40, etc. 

But the slightest examination of the subject 
will convince any one that the full force of the 
original ^iddoKaXogj DidashaJoSj is not contained 
in the word ^Heacher ;"■ for the word implies 
not only one who communicates knowledge, but, 
in its application to Christ, it implies also author- 
ity as a teacher. 

Webster, in defining ^^ teacher," does not give 
one acceptation as involving the idea of author 
ity or government; but in defining ^^ master/' 
he not only gives it as containing the idea of 
governing, but also as involving the idea of 
instructing. This, then, is the term which ought 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 217 

to be used; in order to express tlie full intent 
of tlie original word. And just let the reader 
test the proposed change^ by substituting the 
word ^^ Teacher" for ^^ Master/^ in the passages 
above referred to^ and he will see that the import 
is perfectly tame and insufficient. 

^^ Make to stumble/^ for ^^ offend/^ is proposed 
as a translation of GfcavSaXL^G)j skandalizo. If 
the rendering of the common version be obscure^ 
as alleged; how much less obscure is this ? Let 
the reader test it by reading a few passages with 
this change^ viz. : '^ Doth this make you stiimhle ?^' 
instead of; ^^Doth this offend you ?^^ ^^All ye 
shall he made to stumhle this night/ ^ instead of, 
^^All ye shall be offended/' etc. '' If thy right 
hand mahe tliee stumhlej^ etc.; instead of, '' If thy 
right hand offend iJiee,'^ etc. 

It will be observed that this proposed change is 
perfectly reckless of the fact that the original 
word in these instances; as in the common version, 
is not used in a literal, but in 2i figurative sense; 
and; therefore; by giving a literal sense in the 
translation, they pervert the meaning of the 
19 



97 Q 



18 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



I 



Saviour and tlie apostleS; and make them speak 
nonsense. 

In Acts xvii. 22^ ^^ very religious^^ is proposed 
to be substituted for ^Hoo superstitious;'^ andtbe 
passage would then read : '^ I perceive that in all 
things ye are very religious/^ 

The term in the original is a very different one 
from that used in James i. 26. In James, it 
is d^prjaiiog, thresJcos, In this passage it is 
dELGLdalfKjJv, deisidaimon. In James, the term 
ilireskos means religious, devout, pious. In this 
passage, the term deisidaimon is a compound of 
deidci), deido, to fear, and 6aL[iG)v, daimonj which 
in the New Testament usually signifies the Devil 
or an evil spirit; and in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, it 
designates the heathen divinities — invisible ob- 
jects of idolatrous worship. 

We are constrained to conclude, therefore, that 
the translation proposed is unjustifiable. If the 
apostle had intended to express the idea of the 
Athenians being very religious in a good sense, it 
is strange he should not have used the same word 
which James uses, or one of the same import. 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BI13LE- 219 

But wlio can think that the inspired apostle of 
the Gentiles should have adopted the expedient 
of bestowing a compliment on the idolatrous 
Athenians, for the purpose of avoiding the ex- 
citement of their prejudices against his mission ? 
The translation of the common version is then a 
good one, and the one proposed is a false one, if 
we are to be guided bj the scriptural usage of the 
original term. 

It is proposed to substitute '^ sound of the 
voice'' for ^' voice/' in Acts ix. 7. The passage 
would then read : ^^ The men who journeyed with 
him stood speechless, hearing the sound of the 
voice/' 

In reference to this change, I quote from a 
pamphlet containing a very able review of the 
New Version movement, by a committee appointed 
by a meeting of Baptists of the city of New York, 
opposed to the movement. This able document 
is signed by Drs. Welch, Dowling, and three 
others. 

They use the following language, (pp. 30, 31 :) 
'' The ground on which this alteration is defended 



220 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

is the use of tlie genitive case^ instead of tlie ac- 
cusative, in the original text. It cannot; how- 
ever, have escaped the notice of an attentive 
reader of the Greek Testament, that, as respects 
the usage of the sacred writers^ (to extend the 
investigation no farther,) there is not the slightest 
indication of any difference in the force of the 
two forms of expression. They are, throughout 
the NeiD Testamentj used interchangeably ^ and in 
all respects in such manner as to place it beyond 
all doubt that they were regarded as being entirely 
synonymous. 

^' The apostle, in the statement, recorded Acts 
xxii. 7, and xxvi. 14, ^^And I heard a voice say- 
ing unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou 
me V^ uses in one case the genitive, and in the 
other the accusative. 

^'Again, the Apostle John, in the phrase, ^And 
I heard a great voice saying,^ occurring Rev. i. 
10, xvi. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 3, employs in two in- 
stances the genitive ; in the other two, the accu- 
sative. Again, in Rev. x. 4, and xiv. 13, ^And 
I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,^ the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 221 

genitive is used in the former passage; the accu- 
sative in the latter. And as in all these instances 
the very words which were spoken are recorded 
as having been heard and understood, it would be 
folly to say that the reference in the one case is 
simply and specifically to the sound of the voice ^ 
and in the other to the voice itself. To these 
may be added the passage, Heb. iii. 15 : ' To- 
day if ye will hear his voice, (genitive,) harden 
not your hearts;' as also John xviii. 37 : ^ Every 
one that is of the truth heareth my voice ;' lan- 
guage which, so far from being adapted to ex- 
press or even to suggest any idea such as our 
brethren seek to attach to it, most obviously re- 
fers to the ^ voice,' not simply as understood, but 
oheyed. See also John v. 25, x. 16, 27 : 2 Tim. 
i. 13 : Rev. iii. 20, etc. 

'' These facts must sufiice to satisfy every mind 
that the distinction which our brethren imagine 
they perceive in the phraseology under consider- 
ation has not the slightest foundation in the usage 
of the New Testament writers. And we cannot 
but regard the introduction of the words, ^the 
19^ 



222 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

sound of/ into Acts ix. 7; as beings in the view 
of this usage^ not an ^ amendment/ or improve- 
ment in the translation^ but an unwarranted 
' addition^ to the sacred text. No one^ however 
respectable may be his attainments in classic 
Greek^ can be justified in undertaking the work 
of translating the New Testament, without first 
becoming thoroughly acquainted with the scrip- 
tural usage; and the usage, too, which in each 
case may serve to illustrate the import of the par- 
ticular passage to be translated. Far less are the 
sweeping denunciations of the received transla- 
tion, as being ' palpably' erroneous, in which our 
brethren have so freely indulged, to be excused, 
when, as in the present case, a little examination 
is sufficient to place it beyond all dispute, that 
the ^erroneousness' in reality and manifestly per- 
tains to what is offered as a ^corrections or 
^ amendment.' 

'^ With regard to the import of Acts ix. 7, we 
see no occasion for setting aside the idea naturally 
suggested to the mind by the received translation ) 
especially when it is considered that there is 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 223 

nothing in the passage to indicate that the men 
in company with Saul understood the import of 
what was uttered, (comp. chap. xvi. 14,) or to 
ivhonij or hy v:lcoin it was spoken. '^ 

^' In prison/^ is proposed for '' in hold ^' — Acts 
iv. 3 ; and the passage would then read : ^^And 
they laid hands on them and put them in prison 
unto the next day.'' The original word, rTJprjatg, 
teresis, (from rrjpeG), fereo, to have an eye to, to 
watch, to keep, to guard,) is defined by Eobinson 
as to its use in the New Testament : 1. A watch- 
ing, keeping — 3. guard, watch; in New Testa- 
ment, meton., place of ward^ prison : Greenfield, 
a keeping, custody , i. e., hy meton., a place where 
one is confined, prison, hold, ward. 

It will be observed, then, that whenever this 
term is used to signify prison, or place of cus- 
tody, it is so used by metonymy. Its proper 
meaning is safe heeping, custody ; and this sense 
is certainly very suitable for Acts iv. 3. No im- 
provement can be realized by substituting the 
figurative for the primary ^ literal sense of the 



224 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

term. And tlie perspicuity of the passage does 
not require it. 

^^ Faithless'^ is proposed to be substituted ^^for 
believe not/^ in 2 Tim. ii. 13: ^^If we believe 
not, jet he abideth faithful : he cannot deny him- 
self /^ which, iDhen improved^ will read : '' If we 
he faithless, he abideth faithful/' etc. 

On this, Messrs. Welch, Bowling, etc., re- 
mark : '' The idea expressed by the passage, as 
it stands in our present version, is one of peculiar 
interest and force, to wit : our unbelief or incre- 
dulity respecting the Divine declarations cannot 
do away with the certainty of their fulfilment. 
His revealed purposes, whether regarded or dis- 
regarded, will, without the possibility of a failure, 
be executed : to distrust his word, although it 
may awaken a temporary feeling of security, will 
be unavailing in the end, inasmuch as he is faith- 
ful to his word : he cannot deny himself. The 
substitution of the word faithless, however, in 
the sense /a7s6 to one^s trust and profession — the 
sense evidently intended, as furnishing the only 



IMxMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 225 

ground on whicli a cliange in tlie translation could 
be supposed to be necessary — entirely changes 
the import and bearing of tbe passage, and leaves 
us with a sense which will, we believe, be gene- 
rally regarded as being, in comparison with the 
one which we have indicated, tame and frigid. 
Indeed, it is not a little difficult to perceive what 
relation our unfaithfulness sustains to the faith- 
fulness of God. What, then, is the ground on 
which the substitution is made ? 

^'It will doubtless excite the surprise of those 
not acquainted with the original text, to learn that 
the sense presented in this so-called ^amend- 
ment,' which is at variance with what seems to be 
required by the scope and design of the passage, 
so far from being Memanded,^ or even suggested 
by the established import of the original term, is 
secured only by the actual rejection of its uniform 
meaning, as occurring in other passages in the 
New Testament. The compound word a^nsteo 
is always used by the sacred writers in the 
sense ' believe not '/ as, for example, in Acts 
xxviii. 24 : ^And some believed the things which 



226 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

were spoken^ and some helieved not' Mark xvi. 
16 : ^ He that helieveth not shall be damned/ 
Luke xxiv. 41 : ^ While they hdieved not for joy/ 
Rom. iii. 3 : ^ What if some did not helieve' 
etc. The noun apistia is likewise generally used 
in the same characteristic import; as in Eom. iv. 
20 : ' He staggered not at the promise of God 
through unheliefJ See also Mark vi. 6 : Matt. 
xiii. 58, xvii. 20 : Rom. xi. 20, etc. And even 
the adjective form, apistos, is usually employed 
in the New Testament, not in the sense faith- 
less or unfaithful, as contrasted with faithful, 
but as meaning unhelieving, ivitliout faith. 
See 1 Cor. vii. 14: 'The unhelieving husband;' 
X. 27 ; xiv. 22, 23, etc. And yet, in opposition 
to the evidence afforded by these facts, as well as 
in opposition to what loe regard as the exigencies 
of the passage itself, the sense ^believe not' is 
expunged from 2 Tim. ii. 13, and one which is 
favored by no parallel passage in the New Testa- 
ment is introduced in its stead ; and all this, we 
are left to infer, as the correction of a ^ gross' 
and ^ palpable^ error." 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 227 

Errors in grammar, of fearful enormity, 
have been charged upon the common version. 
The first class of these sins against Priscian in- 
cludes the use of '^he^^ for ^^ are,^^ Says Dr. 
TTilliams : ^' Now, to put this ancient form of ex- 
pression, common to some of the best of the elder 
classics of the language, under the caption of 
^grammatical errors,' argues great heedlessness 
or temerity.'^ He then quotes Lord Bacon as 
using it, as follows : " Certainly there he that 
delight in giddiness. '' 

A second class of sins against the laws of 
grammar, includes the use of '' which '^ for 
^^who.^' But Lord Bacon is again cited. He 
uses the following, as quoted by Dr. Williams : 
*^ The apostles and disciples which saw our Sa- 
viour in the flesh.'' 

The use of the preposition ^^ for," before the 
infinitive, is charged as ^^ erroneous and clumsy;" 
but Webster says that " the use is correct^ though 
now obsolete." 

These are but specimens of the changes pro- 
posed; but they are sufficient to show that the 



228 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

advocates of this movement are pressed for an 
apology to jnstify them in making an immersion- 
ist Bible. 

And, indeed, men who can make the charges 
they have made against the common version, 
prove that they are utterly incompetent to act in 
the capacity of critics. They are simply mad 
upon this subject; and no one need wonder if 
they should finally trample the holy oracles under 
their feet, like the Mormons and others ; and, 
abandoning even the expedient of translating^ to 
secure proof of their peculiar dogma, should seek 
for proof from some other source more likely to 
furnish it. 

Their case reminds me of the advice of a 
Quaker to his son, when he first set out in the 
world to make a living. '' Son,^' said he, '' make 
money — honestly, if thee can — but make money. ^^ 
At all hazards they are determined to make 
capital for '^ dip, and nothing hut dip ; immerse, 
and nothing hut immerse.^' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 229 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE PORTION OF THE REVISION PUBLISHED. 

In a former chapter I have referred to the 
portions of the new version that have been pub- 
lished and sent abroad. The only portions I have 
had an opportunity of seeing are the Second 
Epistle of Peter^ and the Book of Revelation in- 
clusive, and the first two chapters of Matthew. 

The design of publishing these portions first 
in order is, doubtless^ as I have already suggested, 
to avoid as long as possible coming before the 
world with their cherished idea of dip or immerse 
in the place of haptize. Consequently^ they go 
no farther with Matthew than the second chapter. 
If they had embraced the third chapter of 
Matthew, or the First Epistle of Peter, the main 
design of the movement would have appeared at 
20 



230 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

once. Immerse would have been ^'printed — 
PRINTED IN THE Bible/' where they intend to 
have it ultimately. But they are anxious to keep 
off the evil day as long as they can. But we 
think it will be proper to call attention to what 
they have done in the work of translation^ in 
order to see if they have acted upon the principles 
which they have so often announced as destined 
to govern them in the work. 

1. The reader will recollect that one chief com- 
plaint against the common version is, that it is 
obscure on account of "the Popish artifice of 
transfer.*^ That by this means the translators 
have "lorapped up^^ and concealed the .t^^^ue 
meaning of God's word ^^from the mass of the 
unlearned/' " the common people/' who consti- 
tute the majority. And the professed object of 
this movement was to " tahe off the Popish cover- 
ing from his pure word,^ and " disabuse the 
public mind, led astray by doctors and diction- 
aries/' etc. 

The reader, no doubt, would think it strange 
indeed if it should appear after all that " the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST TPIE BIBLE. 231 

Popish artifice^ ^ has been adopted by these ultra- 
honest men^ who have had such a sympathy for 
'^ the mass of the unleamied,^^ '' the common 
people.^^ I will take one specimen of the per- 
spicuousness of this renowned new version, from 
the Book of Revelation, vi. 6. The common 
version reads thus : 

^^And I heard a voice in the midst of the four 
beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and 
three measures of barley for a penny; and see 
thou hurt not the oil and the wine/' 

The new version has it : 

^^And I heard a voice in the midst of the four 
living creatures saying, A choenix of wheat for 
a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a 
denarius/^ 

There, now ! is not that plain ? '' The com- 
mon people,'^ ^Hhe mass of the unlearned,^^ 
know what "denarius^' is! yes! they can 
find out what it means by consulting Webster. 
And those of them who cannot afford to buy 
Webster, and cannot have access to it, must take 
for granted that the faithful, and honest, and 



232 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

learned translator knew, and that it is right, 
whether they know what it means or not ! But 
*'choenix r^ '^ clioenix !^' what will they do with 
that? Could the unlearned always have access 
to Webster, he could not help them at all to a 
knowledge of its meaning, Webster is confined 
to a definition of terms already in use in the 
EnglisJi language. But this ^^ choenix^^ is an un- 
naturalized foreigner. Its meaning can only be 
known by reference to a Greek Lexicon. The 
word in the Greek is ;\;o2i'if, '^ clioinixJ^ All 
this learned translator' has done is to substitute e 
in English for iota in Greek. Is this a trans- 
lation or a transfer ? Is this making the word 
of God jplain to '^ the common people ?^^ 

How much more do the people know about 
^^denarius^^ than '^ penny ^^ or about '' cJioenix^^ 
than '' measure ?^^ And if the translators de- 
signed to make the thing so plain as to obviate 
the necessity of referring to commentaries or dic- 
tionaries, as they promised to do, why did they 
not substitute '' the eighth of a peck, or one 
qiiartj^ in the place of '^ choenixj^ and "seven 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 233 

pence three farthings^ or fourteen cents,^^ in the 
place of '^ denarius ?^^ 

They have spoken of hajptize as ^^ a lizard 
crawling from a papal swamp/^ "Well^ what is 
^^ clioenix ?^^ It must be a crocodile or an alli- 
gator. 

But let us have another specimen of perspicu- 
ity — of taking the Popish covering from God's 
pure word. It is found in Matthew ii. 1-7, 16. 
In all these verses, ^^ magians^' is put in the place 
of ^^ wise menJ^ 

Here we have another instance of '^ the Popish 
artifice of transfer J' The Greek is [idyoi, 
^^magoi/^ A slight variation of the original 
term is all that is done for the benefit of the 
illiterate ^^ common people/' the mass of the un- 
learned. This is translation, is it ? Plain ! per- 
spicuous ! 

If some of the common people knew who these 
learned translators are, and where they live, they 
might write, or, if they should be too illiterate to 
do this, they might get one to write for them, and 
ask them to state what ^'choenixj^ '^ denarius ^^^ 
20* 



234 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

and ^^ magians,^^ mean. But ^^ their names may 
not come abroad.^' It would ^^ subject tbem to 
relentless persecution/^ and seriously annoy them 
in their great and learned work. So they must 
be content^ and wait for the oracle at New York 
(the Board of Managers of the American Bible 
Union) to speak out again. 

In a further notice of the new version that has 
appeared; I will call the attention of the reader 
to one of the rules which was to govern the 
translators in their work^ and see if in the portion 
of it already done this rule has been observed. 
Here is the rule : 

^* 2. The common Eno-lish version must be 
made the basis of revision ; and all unnecessary 
interference with the established phraseology 
shall be avoided; and only such alterations shall 
be made as the exact meaning of the inspired 
text and the existing state of the language may 
require. '^ 

I think it will appear that the translator of the 
two chapters of Matthew especially has not kept 
this rule. He discards the old and solemn 



TMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 235 

style of the common version, by writing appears, 
instead of appeareth. In this lie not only vio- 
lates the above rule, and all good taste and judg- 
ment, but he disagrees with the learned translator 
of Peter, Jude, John's epistles, and the Revela- 
tion. He uniformly uses the termination th, as 
lovethj TcnoicetJiy Jiath, appeareth. 

This translator also discards xmto^ and seeks to 
impart a modern air to his work by substituting 
to in its stead. I quote a part of what he says 
to justify this literary vandalism. ^^ The pre- 
position ^ unto/ as found in the common version, 
is not used by good speakers and writers of the 
present day. Noah Webster says it is ^of no 
use in language : it is found in writers of former 
times, but is entirely obsolete.^ In a thorough 
revision, therefore, this word, and all others that 
are in the same condition, must be rejected, un- 
less the Book of God is to be kept throughout 
all ages as the repository of obsolete words and 
antiquated forms, and made to the common mind 
a dead letter, etc.'' 

I refer as specimens of this change to Mat- 



236 IMMERSIONISTS AGi^INST THE BIBLE. 

thew i. 20; etc. But tlie author of the re- 
vision of the epistles of Peter^ John, Jude, and 
the Eevelation, has retained ''unto,^' and says in 
reference to it, ^^It would have been easy to im- 
part a much more modern air to the whole by 
such expedients; for example, as exchanging 
unto for tOj etc. But it is scarcely worth while 
to attempt an explanation of the reasons why the 
translator has refrained from doing this.^^ 

Now this revision will certainly be beautifully 
harmonious in its style ! one portion retaining the 
^' untOy' and another rejecting it ! And in what 
kind of a position do the American Bible Union 
stand? They have endorsed both these speci- 
mens, and sent them out. The translator of the 
specimen from Matthew says that '^ a thorough 
revision^' requires the rejection of '' unto,^ and 
thus condemns the translator of Peter, John, etc., 
who does not reject '^untOy^ and thinks the 
reasons for not so doing are so clear that it is 
not necessary to name them. How will this 
thing be adjusted ? The reader will recollect 
that the Board of Managers, through their Com- 



IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 237 

mittee on Revision, have original jurisdiction of 
the whole matter, and of course they will de- 
termine it according to their own taste. 

According to the principle adopted in rejecting 
th or eth, and unto^ they should discard also 
thou, thine, tliy, and tJiee. And, indeed, the 
translator of Matthew says: ^^In a thorough 
.... this word, \^^ unto,^^^ and all others that 
are in the same condition, must be rejected/^ 
Well, thou, thine, etc., are in the same condition, 
and, therefore, they ought to be rejected also; 
and then we should have : ^' Come to me, all you 
that labor, and you shall find rest to your souls. 
Every one that loves, is born of God. Every 
one that asks, receives; and he that seeks, 
finds; whosoever has, to him shall be given. ^' 
And when we pray we must say, according to 
modernizing doctrine, ^^ Our Father, who are in 
heaven, hallowed be your name : your kingdom 
come, your will be done .... for yours is the 
kingdom,^^ etc. 

Secretli/i^ put ior privily, Matthew i. 19. The 
common version reads : ^^ Was minded to put her 



238 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

away privily/^ The new version : ^^Eesolved to 
divorce her secretly/^ 

In a note the translator says : ^^ The common 
version does not correspond with the original. 
The G-reek for ^ privately^ occurs elsewhere^ but 
not here. The exact meaning of this adverb is 
^ secretly.^ 

But let any man look at Webster's Dictionary^ 
and see if there is any ground for the distinction 
between the words privili/ and secretli/^ let the 
original word mean what it may. The question 
IS as to which of these words ought to be used to 
express the meaning of the original. 

Webster defines these words thus : 
Privily J Privately ; secretly. 
Secretly^ Privately; privily. 

Privily, according to Webster^ has as many 
rights as secretly to have the place it occupies in 
the common version. And^ therefore, if it is 
not a translation of the original, neither is 
secretly. 

In Matthew ii. 16, ^^ angry^^ is put in the place 
of ^^ wroth.'' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 239 

In his note the translator says: ^^ The adjec- 
tive ^ wroth' is falling into disuse among good 
speakers and writers of the English language, 
and is not, therefore, the best term for a correct 
translation/' 

But what does "Webster say? ^' Wroth, very 
angry; much exasperated. An excellent word, 
and not obsolete. '^ 

I quote the following from the New York Ob- 
server, as referring to a portion of the new ver- 
sion which I have not seen : 

'' The first time that the new version of the 
Bible has been brought into the pulpit to use, 
was at the funeral-services of the late Rev. 
Dr. Cone. As he was one of its fathers, it was 
meet that his obsequies should be signalized by 
the inauoiuration of his favorite work. The 
Rev. Dr. McClay read selections from the book 
of Job, according to the new version, in the 
midst of which occurred the following passage : 
^And Satan went out from the presence of Jeho- 
vah, and smote Job with grievous ulcers, from 
the sole of his foot to his crown. And he took 



240 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

a potsherd to scrape himself therewith, as he sat 
among the ashes. Then said his wife to him, 
Dost thou still hold fast thy integrity? Bless 
God and die 1 But Job said to her, Thou speak- 
est as one of the foolish women speaks. The 
good shall we receive from God, and shall we not 
receive the evil ?' 

'' If these astute and professedly learned critics 
have found any sufficient reason for substituting 
^ grievous ulcers' for ^ sore boils,^ we will not quar- 
rel with them for the liberty they have taken. 
Sore boils are grievous ulcers, if not vice versa, 
and we are always glad to let them pass. The 
least said the better about boils. But not so the 
new phase they give to the language and senti- 
ment of Job's wife. 

^^ Our translation reads: ^Then said his wife 
unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity ? 
Curse God and die.^ The new translators ren- 
der it, ' Bless God and die.' Is there any thing 
to favor this change ? We are aware that modern 
critics (as Dr. Mason Goode) have given it: 
^Dost thou still retain thine integrity, hlessing 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 241 

Grod and dying T And this reading preserves 
the wife's idea, for she complains of Job for still 
trusting in God even in his extremity. And 
then we see the force of his reply : ^ Thou 
speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. 
What ! shall we receive good at the hand of God, 
and shall we not receive evil V 

^' But if we make Job^s wife to advise her hus- 
band to BLESS God and die, as there was every 
reason to suppose he was about to die, his reply 
to her is inhuman and wicked; and it could not 
be affirmed of him, as it is affirmed, ' In all this 
did not Job sin with his lips.^ 

" ^ The response of Job,^ says Barnes, ^ shows 
that he understood her as exciting him to reject, 
renounce, or curse God. The sense is, that she 
regarded him as unworthy of confidence.' 

^^ It requires no great knowledge of the ancient 
Scriptures to expose the glaring absurdity and 
positive wrong of this Baptist version's alteration 
of God's holy word. 

^^We know that the word rendered cur^e may 

also be translated hle^s^ as its more precise mean- 
21 



242 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

ing is to invoke, i. e., either good or evil, to be 
determined bj the context. The same word iu 
the Hebrew is used in 1 Kings xxi. 10-13, where 
the sons of Belial are hardly to be suspected of 
charging JSTaboth with blessing God and the king. 
In the case of Job and his wife, the whole con- 
versation proceeds on the presumption that she 
exhorts the patient and submissive patriarch to 
curse Grod, and not hless him, as he had done 
(chapter i. 21) with all the fervor of his soul, in 
words that are even to this day the language only 
of a heart perfectly resigned to God's will. Such, 
too, has been the uniform sentiment of the 
Church in all ages and climes. Job's wife has 
been remembered for her wicked assault upon 
her husband in this calamit}^, as truly as Lot's 
wife for looking back when she and her husband 
were fleeing from Sodom. We have called atten- 
tion to this obvious alteration of the sacred text, 
to expose not only the incompetency, but the 
recklessness of these new version tinkers. 

'^ If they will thus mar the beauty and destroy 
the meaning of God's word in portions of the 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 243 

Holy Scriptures where there is no diiFerence of 
opinion among Christians, what will they not 
do when the powerful motive of sectarian preju- 
dice urges them to tamper with the sacred text ? 

^^ It is evident that they have no claim whatever 
to consideration on the score of learning or ability ; 
and we predict that their new Bible will relict 
upon the cause they are hoping to serve by 
getting it up/' 

I might add many authorities to justify the 
common version of Job ii. 9, such as Orton, 
Henry, Scott, etc. But I will content my- 
self with giving a quotation from the late Dr. 
John Kitto, of England, one of the most pro- 
foundly learned biblical critics and scholars of 
this or any other age. I am more inclined 
to give his authority, as the advocates of the 
new version movement put so much stress upon 
the progress of biblical criticism since our com- 
mon version was made, as a reason for a new one. 
"Well, Dr. Kitto is as modern a critic as can be 
desired, and one thoroughly versed in biblical 
learning. 



244 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

I quote from his ^^ Daily Bible Illustrations'- 
of tlie Book of Job; p. 93 : 

^^Therefore, when sbe saw tbat ber busband's 
faith was not shaken even by this sore distress, 
she cried; ' Dost thou still retain thine integrity ? 
Curse God and die/ Surely words so dreadful 
never before nor since came from a woman's 
lips/' 

Again he says : '' Job's answer to this sugges- 
tion^^in which we fail not to trace Satan's hand — 
is worthy of his faith and patience : ^ Thou 
speakest as one of the fooHsh women speaketh. 
What ! shall we receive good at the hand of the 
Lord, and not evil ?' '^ 

Again, on p. 95, after giving various opin- 
ions in regard to the import of the words of 
Job's wife under consideration, he refers to the 

view of their meaning adopted by the translator 

m 
of the Book of Job for the American Bible 

Union, as follows : " There is, however, another 

explanation, which, acknowledging the force of 

this consideration, gives a bad sense to the advice 

of Job's wife, while retaining the sense of hle^s- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 245 

ing instead of cursing God. This is accomplished 
by making her words ironical, as if she had said, 
*Ay, do go on still, relying upon thine integ- 
rity, and blessing God, and yet dying; for he 
will not save thee.' But surely of all things 
, irony would be most misplaced here. Consider 
that she herself was a most afflicted woman^ and 
that the wickedness of rebellious thoughts and 
Ian2!;ua2:e under extreme sorrow is far more 
natural than irony. 

'' There are other explanations of the words, 
both as taken in the sense of ' bless' and ^ curse / 
but the reader has had a sufficient variety. Upon 
the whole, the interpretation we have given 
seems best to meet all the circumstances.'' 



21* 



246 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTEE XII. 

CONCLUSION. 

In tliis chapter I will present a synopsis of th^ 
leading arguments, and some little additional 
matter upon a lew points. 

The reader will bear in mind the real issue in- 
volved in the discussion — not that there are errors 
in the commonly received version ; nor that there 
ought to be a new version ; but this is the ques- 
tion : whether there ought to be such a version 
as the American Bible Union is seeking, i. e., a 
strictly sectarian one — immerse and its cognates 
being substituted for baptize and its cognates. 
This is the question. 

As the advocates of the movement try to deny 
that such is intended to be the character of their 
version, I have been constrained, for the present, 
to decline the discussion of the mairi question 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 247 

upon its merits^ and to proceed to prove that the 
design, and the main design, is the substitution 
of immerse for baptize. 

I. This I have satisfactorily done — 1. From the 
history of the movement in India^ in this country, 
and in Great Britain. "We have seen that Dr. 
Judson and four others consulted Professor 
Stuart as to whether they should transfer haptizo, 
or translate it by words signifying tmmerse. And 
notwithstanding Professor Stuart advised them to 
transfer, as had been done in the Latin, French, 
and English, yet Dr. Judson proceeded to make 
his Burmese version upon immersionist principles. 

In the meantime, other Baptist missionaries, 
Pearce and Yates, were making the same kind 
of a version into the Bengalee tongue ; and learn- 
ing that this was the character of it, the Calcutta 
Bible Society refused any longer to patronize it. 
The British and Foreign Bible Society had as- 
sumed the same ground in reference to sach ver- 
sions. Not being able to secure aid from any 
other society, and learning that the American Bible 
Society were aiding Dr. Judson^s version, which 



248 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

tliey knew to be of tlie same character with their 
own, they wrote to the Society requesting aid. 
The Society learning in this way, for the first 
time, the character of Judson's version, not only 
refused to grant aid to Pearce and Yates, but 
withdrew their support from Judson^s. 

They were constrained to do this in accordance 
with the very principles upon which the Society 
was originally organized. And I have most satis- 
factorily shown, from the best authority, that 
there is no just ground of complaint against the 
Society. 

I have shown that, in India, Great Britain, 
and in this country, the Baptists seceded from 
the Bible societies in these three quarters of the 
globe, because those societies would not appropriate 
money, contributed by all denominations, to aid 
in publishing sectarian versions of the narrowest 
kind. 

And why was the Baptist Bible Society (the 
^^ American and Foreign'^) formed ? Simply on 
account of the devotion of the Baptists to im- 
mersion. Why was the British Translation So- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 249 

ciety organized under the auspices of the Ame- 
rican and Foreign Bible Society, through their 
agent, Dr. McOlay? Why, in order to secure 
immersionist versions of the Scriptures, as is 
demonstrated by one article of their constitution, 
which requires that, in all translations they will 
patronize, the words relating to the ordinance 
of baptism must be translated by words signify- 
ing immerse. 

And finally, why, in 1850, did Dr. Cone and 
others secede from the American and Foreign 
Bible Society, and form the American Bible 
Union? Why, simply and exclusively because 
the American and Foreign Bible Society decided, 
by an overwhelming majority, to recede from the 
purpose they at one time entertained, of carrying 
out the same principle in reference to the Eng- 
lish Scriptures which they had been from the 
beginning carrying out in reference to all their 
translations into foreign tongues, and which they 
are still maintaining : that is, to have an English 
translation of the Holy Scriptures on immersion^ 
ist principles. To secure such a version is the 



250 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

leading and controlling purpose of the American 
Bible Union. This is the thing which distin- 
guishes this institution from the American and 
Foreign Bible Society. 

2. I have adduced quotations from the reports 
of the American and Foreign Bible Society^ the 
Bible Translation Society of Great Britain, and 
of the American Bible Union, and also from the 
speeches and addresses and other publications of 
the leading advocates of the new version move- 
ment, in this country, Asia and Europe, in which 
there is sore complaint against the Bible societies 
of Europe, Asia, and America, for not giving the 
heathen immerse as the translation of haptizo^ in 
the versions into foreign languages, and in the 
English language — that thus the heathen are 
^' left to perish in their ignorance and idolatry,'^ 
without having a knowledge of baptism — that in 
the common version in English the ordinance 
''is covered up and hid^^ from the mass of the 
people by ^^the Popish artifice of trans- 
fers^ — that ''it is lorapped up in obscurity ^^ 
and can only be known by "tlie learned'^ — that 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 251 

the great principle ''to vindicate^^ which the 
American and Foreign Bible Society was organ- 
ized is, that in translations into all languages, 
''hajptizo and its cognates should he rendered hy 
words signifying immerse, immersion j^ etc. ; and 
that this Society receding from the great purpose 
of its original organization, as far as the English 
Scriptures are concerned, the American Bible 
Union assumes its place, and proposes to accom- 
plish this ^^ great work^' — that the aim of the 
Union is to have ''immerse printed — printed in 

THE BlBLE.^' 

I have quoted from the speeches of several dis- 
tinguished advocates of the movement, in which 
the admission is distinctly and unequivocally 
made, that the English word haptize is a word 
of generic import, having lost what they contend 
was its specific import, to immerse, which they 
say it had in the days of Elizabeth, and when 
our translation was made ; and they propose, as 
haptize has become a lying old sinner, to turn 
it out of the Bible, and out of the Church, and 
bring in immerse into its place. 



252 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

3. Having tlius adduced in part wliat the 
leaders in this enterprise have said, as to the 
7}iain design^ I have proceeded to show what 
they have actually done, as settling the question 
beyond the possibility of cavil. 

I have quoted from the edition of the New Tes- 
tament published by the American and Foreign 
Bible Society, with the meaning of haptize and 
haptism given on ^^a fly-leaf/^ in a glossary, as 
immerse and immersion. 

I have also quoted from the edition of Cone 
and WyckoiF, with immerse^ immersion^ and their 
cognates, incorporated into the text in the place 
of haptize, haptism, etc. 

These editions were published by the American 
and Foreign Bible Society long before they gave 
up their purpose of having an immersionist ver- 
sion of the English Scriptures, and they were 
sent out among the Baptists in order to prepare 
them for that which was to follow in due course. 

I have presented a specimen of the translation 
into the Siamese tongue, in which haptizo^ etc., 
are translated bywords signifying immerse^ immer- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 253 

siouy etc. And the editor of tlie Bible Union Re- 
porter approves of this translation, as in accordance 
with the great principle governing the movement. 
I have referred to the Spanish and Italian ver- 
sions. I will here give a specimen from the 
former, as published in the Bible Union Reporter 
for October, 1853. Here it is in the Spanish 

language : 

"Mateo, cap. hi. 

"11. Yo, si, sumerjo en agua en [profesion de] 
arrepentimiento ; pero el que viene en pos de 
ml, mas fuerte es que yo, cuyo calzado no soi 
digno de lleverale : el os sumergira en Espiritu 
Santo, i en fuego/^ 

Now, here, as the reader will observe, the word 
" sumerjo,^^ in Spanish, is given as the rendering 
of haptizo. And this word, indicating by its 
very form its origin from the Latin, means nothing 
but immerse ox plunge. I repeat again, we have 
in these translations what the Union have actually 
done, as demonstrating what kind of a version we 
are to expect in English. 

It is true, as I have shown, they in so many 
22 



254 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

words deny that the design is to substitute im- 
merse for haptizej and adduce the rules as merely 
requiring that the original be '^faithfully trans- 
latedJ^ But we know very well what they mean 
by ^^ faithful translations/^ They are such as^ at 
least, have immerse in the place of baptize, and 
this can be secured without violating the rules, 
as I have shown. And that it can be done in 
accordance with the rules in the estimation of the 
Union itself, is positively demonstrated by the 
fact that they have had such versions made, and 
have approved of them as in accordance with the 
great principle governing the Union in the work 
of translation; and they have published them 
and sent them abroad as '^ speciynens.^^ 

II. I have next noticed some of the dishonor- 
able , and, as I think, linchristian, expedients 
which are adopted to hoodwink the public as to 
the main design of the movement. I will here 
recur to the principal of these expedients, be- 
fore noticed, as showing up the kind of tac- 
tics adopted to carry forward what its advocates 
style '' the greatest enterprise of the age.^^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 255 

1. I have noticed the effort to make a false 
impression upon the public mind by representing 
that all the denominations of Protestant Chris- 
tians are engaged in it — both in Europe and 
America. And I see in a late number of the 
'^Western Kecorder/^ published at Louisville, 
Ky., that they are claiming the Roman Catholics 
as in favor of it. They might just as well go on 
and say that the whole world; ecclesiastical, 
political; and literary^ are in favor of it — Jews, 
MohammedanS; and Heathens. Having loosed 
their moorings from the haven of honesty and 
candor, they might as well keep out at sea, 
and say any thing at all that will serve their 
purpose. 

I have shown that the Pedobaptists engaged 
in this enterprise, either as members of the 
Union or as translators, are not in any sense the 
representatives of the Churches to which they be- 
long. If they are, where and when were they 
appointed as such, and where is the record of it ? 
And if the Pedobaptist Churches are represented, 
why do none of them appear as officers of the 



256 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

Union ? Wlij do not some of tliem appear as its 
advocates at their anniversaries? Wliy do no 
Pedobaptist journals advocate the great principle 
of the Union ? AVhy are none of the Pedobap- 
tists employed as agents to travel through the 
country and advocate revision? Let these ques- 
tions be answered before this statement is made 
any more. 

As to the Pedobaptists engaged as translators, 
(and they say a majority of their translators are 
of this clasS;) they admit in their own publica- 
tions that they are employed ''under written con- 
tract.^ ^ They are only doing a literary joh for 
the Union. They have sold themselves to the 
Bible Union for the time, for ^^ a mess of pottage,^' 
which, I have no doubt, the poor fellows needed 
very much. 

But it matters not who are the translators. 
Their work has to be scanned by the committee 
on versions of the Bible Union before it can see 
the light. This committee, and another, called 
an "ultimate committee^^ must be pleased with 
its merits in all respects. And of whom are these 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 257 



committees composed ? Why, wimersionistSj and 
none but immersionists, 

2. Another feature in the tactics of this 
'^greatest enterprise,^ ^ is the publication of cer- 
tain portions of the new version, which do not 
contain the real issue ; and they have sent these 
abroad as ''specimens'^ of the forthcoming com- 
pleted version. The portions, as the reader will 
recollect I have stated, do not contain haptizo, 
nor any of its derivatives, in the original ; and, 
therefore, the translators could not come out with 
the main design in these portions. Why did 
they not, I have inquired, publish the third 
chapter of Matthew and the second epistle of 
Peter? Why, simply, because this would have 
opened the eyes of the public to the main design, 
which they aim to avoid. They have, by this 
unfair course, had these ''specimens'^ puffed, and 
have published the commendations of a large num- 
ber of learned men in England and America as 
favorable to the enterprise as such. 

I will here, however, present one "specimen'^ 

22* 



258 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

of the manner, doubtless, in wliicli many, if not 
all, of these commendations have been secured. 

I quote from the New York Observer for 
January 3, 1856, as follows: ^^The use which 
has been made of the names of gentlemen in 
other Christian denominations, to give currency 
to the new version, is, in our view, worthy of 
specific censure, inasmuch as it lacks that Chris- 
tian fairness and candor which should peculiarly 
characterize the movement of all religious asso- 
ciations. As an example of the use which has 
been made of distinguished names, we copy the 
following correspondence between the Rev. E. B. 
Raffensperger and Dr. J. A. Alexander : 

''Bellefontaine, 0., Nov. 27, 1855. 
^^ Dear Sir : — To-day I dined with one of the 
families of my Church, in company with a cer- 
tain Baptist minister, who is in the employ of the 
^ Bible Union/ He stated, in the presence of 
the company, that you had given your 'unquali- 
Jied approval of the operations of that Society.' 
In reply to my question, he also stated that he 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 259 

is in the habit of using the influence of your 
name from the pulpit on the Sabbath^ while urg- 
ing the claims of the ^ Bible Union/ Will you 
be kind enough to state whether this man has 
really any authority for making such use of the 
venerated name of one of my Princeton in- 
structors ? 

"Yours, respectfully, 

"E. B. RAFrENSPERGER. 

"Rev. J. A. Alexander, D.D." 

^'Princeton, N. J., Dec. 5, 1855. 
" My dear Sir : — I have as-ain and ao;ain 
contradicted the absurd and false report that I 
approve of the new Baptist Bible. It has grown 
out of a friendly expression of opinion as to the 
literary merit of that part of the revision executed 
by a minister of our own Church, the Rev. John 
Lillie, of New York. That opinion has no more 
to do with the question of a new version to re- 
place the common one, than my own translation 
of Isaiah and the Psalms, which I would not, if 
I could, put into the place of the authorized ver- 



260 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

sion. While I look upon new translations as an 
important part of interpretation, I think the 
scheme of a new Bible to replace the old one as 
inexpedient and impracticable in itself, as the 
use of my name by its advocates, after my 
repeated public contradiction, is dishonest and 
unchristian. For confirmation of these state- 
ments, I refer to the Rev. John Lillie, at the 
office of the ' Bible Union' itself. 

^^ Yours, very truly, 

'' J. A. Alexander. 
^^Rey. E. B. Raffenspergeii.'' 

And in the Observer of the 17th of the same 
month there is published the following from the 
Rev. Mr. Lillie, to whom Dr. Alexander refers 
in the above letter. 

^'Ameuican Bible Union Rooms, Jan. 8, 1856. 
'^ Messrs. Editors : — In your last number I 
observed a letter from the Rev. Dr. J. A. Alex- 
ander, of Princeton, in which, after briefly ex- 
plaining what it was that has led some, it would 
appear, to represent him as favorable to an enter- 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 261 

prise of wliicli he disapproves^ to wit, tliat of the 
American Bible Union, lie refers his correspond- 
ent for fuller information to myself. Let this be 
my apology for troubling you with the following 
statement. 

" Some three years ago I printed a work of 
mine on the Second Epistle of Peter, and the 
Epistles of John and Jude. And it was in rela- 
tion to this that I received from Dr. Alexander, 
toward the close of 1852, a written expression 
of his opinion. In the summer of 1854, the 
same work was reprinted, in greatly enlarged 
form, and with the addition of the Book of 
Revelation, the whole making a volume of five 
times the size of its predecessor. When, there- 
fore, I returned from Europe in the fall of the 
year last mentioned, and, on the day of my 
landing, ' found in the printed abstract of the 
Annual Report, prepared for the annual meeting 
of the Society then in session, a few commenda- 
tory words extracted from that private letter, and 
which now also might be taken as an endorse- 
ment of the latter publication, I was, indeed, not 
a little chagrined. It was nearly two years since 1 



262 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

had consented that a communication^ in which the 
brethren of the Bible Union naturally felt them- 
selves interested, should be copied at their rooms, 
but with an express understanding, as I did 
most assuredly suppose, that nothing of it what- 
ever should be published without the writer^s 
consent first asked and obtained : though it must 
be confessed, on the other hand, that, in my in- 
quiries on the subject, the Secretary disclaims all 
recollection of any such restriction. However, I 
wrote immediately to Dr. Alexander, expressing 
my deep regret at what had occurred, and offer- 
ing to make whatever public amends was still in 
my power. In very kind terms he relieved me 
of that necessity; and the Secretary himself then 
proposed, as I also informed Dr. Alexander, that 
in the Annual Report, which had not yet 
appeared, the reference of the extract to the first 
specimen of revision should be distinctly defined, 
or, if Dr. Alexander preferred, the extract should 
be suppressed altogether. The former alterna- 
tive was the one finally adopted. 

'' I am, etc., 

^^JOHN LiLLIE.'' 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 263 

Now, I would ask, in view of the light afforded 
in the above correspondence as to the manner 
in which Dr. Alexander's commendation of the 
new version was secured, what confidence can be 
reposed in the legitimacy of any of the numer- 
ous commendations they have published, and 
which are read and commented on by the agents 
of the Union throughout the length and breadth 
of the land, in order, if possible, to swindle the 
people out of their money ? 

Who knows but that the whole of them have 
been secured in the same fraudulent and dis- 
honest way ? 

3. I have referred to the manner in which King 
James and the translators of the common version, 
and the version itself, have been abused by the 
friends of this movement, as a means of making 
way for their own one-sided, sectarian production. 
But I have proved from the highest authority, 
and Baptist authority at that, 1. That James was 
not legally acknowledged as king of England at 
the time the translation was determined upon. 
2. That the motion for a new translation did not 



264 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

originate witli James, nor the Episcopal party, but 
was made by Dr. Rainolds, a Puritan^ or Presby- 
terian. 3. That James did not select the trans- 
lators : he only approved of the selection made. 

4. That neither James nor the government of 
England ever recognized the enterprise, or ever 
paid one penny to defray the expenses of it. 

5. That the common version did not gain the 
ascendency over other versions then and for 
many years after published, as the result of any 
interference of royal or governmental authority, 
but as the result of its own intrinsic merits. 

As to the rules prescribed for the direction of 
the translators, of which there has been so much 
complaint, as fettering them, I have shown, 1. 
That the rules do not prohibit translation from 
the original at all, in any sense. 2. That the 
word baptize is not once named in the rules as 
one of the words to be retained. 3. That the 
only absolute restriction which the rules lay upon 
the translators is, that they shall be faithful to 
the orio;inal Hebrew and Greek. 4. That the 
translators certainly did not understand the rules 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 265 

as prohibiting the translation of haptizo ; for 
they have positively translated it^ at least in three 
instances : one in Heb. ix. 10; and twice in Mark 
vii. 4. 

But I have proved that the very thing which 
they have charged King Jaraes with doing, with- 
out the slightest foundation, the American Bible 
Union have done themselves. They have left to 
their translators no independent discretion at all. 
In addition to what I have adduced from their 
own publications to demonstrate this astounding 
fact, I will furnish the reader with an additional 
quotation from the Semi-annual Report of the 
American Bible Union for 1855, as published in 
the Bible Union Reporter for June, 1855, which 
lies before me. Listen to what the Board of 
Managers say : 

^^When a scholar is engaged by the Board, 
instructions are introduced into the contract, 
requiring the exact meaning of the original ; and 
he is requested and urged to make the most 
thorough and faithful version possible. No ex- 
pense is spared to furnish him with needed books, 
23 



266 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE, 

and other requisite facilities. When his work is 
finished^ the manuscript is submitted to the 
Boardy and referred to the committee on versions. 
This committee is required to give it a carefid 
examination, and not to recommend its printing 
unless its me?nts will justify such an expenditure. 
If this is not the case, another scholar or other 
scholars are employed on the same part. Some- 
times the loorh has to go through the hands of a 
third or fourth painty before the committee feel 
justified in printing it. On some parts ive have 
manuscrijJts from five different hands. All of 
these are of more or less service in the prosecution 
of the work ; and ultimately will greatly aid 
the ultimate committee that must prepare the 
whole book for the press. ^^ 

Did KiDg James or any other despot ever insti- 
tute such a system of surveillance over a set of 
translators before ? 

And in view of the account above given by 
the Union itself, what independent discretion, I 
ask again, do these notable and '' learned'^ trans- 
lators enjoy ? 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 267 

4. Another expedient whicli I have noticed, is 
the representation that other denominations have 
had their denominational translations^ and that, 
consequently, there should be no complaint of the 
immersionists for having one. If they had 
appealed to the example of the Papists, the 
Swedenborgians, the Universalists, the Unitari- 
ans, and the sect of the Destructionists, to 
justify their measure, there would have been 
some appropriateness in it. For all these have 
versions, or rather perversions of the Holy 
Scriptures conforming to their faith and usages. 

But where is any sectarianism, for instance, in 
Wesley's translation of the New Testament? 
Where is there any in Doddridge's or Mac- 
knight's, unless it be in opposition to the pre- 
vailing opinion and practice of their own sect ia 
regard to baptism ? And again : Did any of 
these learned men intimate that his version was 
designed to supersede the common version ? Or 
have any of these denominations intimated a 
desire that such should be the case ? or has any 
such thing been attempted ? 

Conybeare has been quoted as favorable to this 



268 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

movement, because he has given, in his late trans- 
lation of PauFs epistles, variations from the com- 
mon version, though, perhaps, he never heard of 
the Bible Union. But we have quoted the lan- 
guage of him and Mr. Howson speaking of the 
common version as '' unrivalled.'^ 

The same claim is made in reference to every 
learned man who has taken any exceptions to the 
manner in which any passage in the common 
version is translated. All he says is construed 
and published as so much said in favor of this 
movement, though he may have expressed in the 
most unequivocal manner his admiration of the 
common version as a whole. This remark applies 
to Dr. Adam Clarke, and many others. 

Nothing these men have said can be legiti- 
mately construed in favor of this movement, 
unless it can be shown that they have expressed 
themselves in favor of the main design — that is, 
the substitution of immerse for baptize in the 
common version. Have they done this? 

As to what the American Bible Society have 
recently done, I have shown that they have made 
no translation at all, but merely a '^ collation,^ ^ 



IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 269 

for the purpose, mainly , of restoring our copy of 
the Bible to the edition of 1611. They have 
made some correction of errors in orthography, 
punctuation, capital letters, etc. 

And then, again, we have asked, even if the 
American Bible Society have made a translation, 
(and they have not,) is there any change which 
they have made favorable to the doctrines or 
practice of any sect, or any class of sects ? 

III. I have briefly examined some of the 
changes proposed in the common version, and 
have shown, I think, very conclusively, that none 
of them are demanded by fidelity to the original, 
while many of them are an outrage upon good 
taste and sound biblical criticism. 

IV. I have finally offered a brief criticism on 
the portions of the new version that I have been 
able to secure, and have shown that whatever 
may be the merit of some of the changes they 
have made, they have violated their own prin- 
ciples of translation, so loudly and repeatedly 
announced, and have done violence to the rules 

of good taste and sound scholarship. 
23* 



270 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 

And I think the reflecting among the devotees 
of this movement will be constrained, after a 
while, to feel the force of the prophet's language, 
if the ^^ specimens'^ already published indicate 
the character of their version : '^ Hath a nation 
changed their gods, which are yet no gods ? But 
my people have changed their glory for that 
which doth not profit V^ 

Many a good, pious Baptist, (and there are 
such,) if this new version should prevail, will 
feel like Mary did when she said, " They have 
taken away my Lord, and I know not where 
they have laid him/^ No person deeply imbued 
with piety, not to say sound learning or good 
judgment, can ever finally give up ^^The Old- 
fashioned Bible'' for any such a mutilated and 
spiritless thing ^ apart from its narroio sectarian 
character. ^^No man, having drunk old wine, 
straightway desireth new ; for he saith the old is 
better.'' 

THE END. 



PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH. 



The folio vring works have been recently paLlislied 
hy the Rev. Dr. Early, and are on sale at the Depo- 
fiftories in Richmond and Louisville; and also in 
Charleston, at Mahoney's. 

BAPTISM : a Treatise on the Nature, Perpetuity, Subjects, 
Administrator, Mode, and Use of the Initiating Ordi- 
nance of the Christian Church. With an Appendix, 
containing Strictures on Dr. Kowell's '* Evils of 
Infant Baptism," Plates illustrating the Primitive 
Mode of Baptism, &c. By Thomas 0. Summers. 252 
pages, 12mo. 
This book is got up in handsome style and sold at 65 cts. 
retail, with the usual discount to wholesale purchasers — 42 
cts. to Sunday-schools. A copy ought to be in every library. 
Competent judges — among them the bishops and editors of 
the church — have spoken of this work in unqualified terms 
of approval Several thousand copies were sold \ory soon 
after its first issue. 

" The fulness of this title does not surpass the comprehen- 
Biveness of the volume. Each subject embraced in the title- 
page is elaborated with clearness and force in its order, and 
the work has many strong points in support of Pedobaptist 
views. The body of the volume — on the nature, <fec., of 
Baptism — presents the arguments on each subject in a form 
at once compact and conclusive, and well adapted to meet 
the requirements of the controversy in the popular mind." — 
Riclimond Christian Advocate. 

WESLEY'S SEHMONS: with copious Indexes, carefully 

prepared by Thomas 0. Summers. 

This is an elegant 12mo edition in four volumes, got up 

expressly for the convenience of ministers, Sundaj^'-schools, 

ftad family libriries. Price |? ^?^— i<c S'oi day-schools, $1.92. 

1 



PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E. ChuRCH, SOUTH. 

THE HEBREW MISSIOl^ AHY : Essays Exegetical ano 
Practical, on tlio Book of Jonah. By the Eev 
Joseph Cross, D.D. ISmo, pp. 242. Price 35 cents 

This boo'k is a valuable contribution to our Church lit-e- 
rature — it exhibits great research, and abounds in eloquent 
passages and valuable reflections. The engravings and 
maps illustrative of Nineveh, as brought to light by Layard 
and others, add great interest to the work, 

L TREATISE ON SECRET AND SOCIAL PRAYER. 
By Richard Treffry. 18mo, pp. 215. Price 35 cents. 

A very serviceable book. 

THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES : their His- 
tory, Eaith, and Worship. ISmo, pp. 179. Price 
30 cents. 

We have never met with so much reliable information 
on the Oriental churches, in so short a compass, as is found 
in this neat volume. 

SCRIPTURE VIEWS OF THE HEAVENLY WORLD. 
By J. Edmondson, A.M. ISmo, pp. 249. Price 35 
cents. 

A neat edition of a book which takes rank with Baxter^s 
*^aint's Rest — to which great work it is in some respecta 
superior. 

DIALOGUES ON POPERY. By Jacob Stanley. 18mo. 
pp. 264. Price 35 cents. 

A carefully revised and beautifully printed edition of an 
excellent book : it has had an extensive circulation both 
Bides of the Atlantic. 

TRIAL OF THE WITNESSES OF THE RESUREEC- 
TION OF CHRIST. By Bishop Sherlock. With 
an Introduction by Thos. 0. Summers 18mo, pp. 
137. Price 30 cents. 

This masterly work is got up in convenient form and 
Ceautiful style. The introduction contains a brief bio 
graphy of the illustrious author. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

I 




014 665 056 9 




